As far as I know, reconstructing faces from bones is more art than science. There is little to be done about that.
Endward23
joined 11 months ago
"Indeed, we have already observed an AI system deceiving its evaluation. One study of simulated evolution measured the replication rate of AI agents in a test environment, and eliminated any AI variants that reproduced too quickly.10 Rather than learning to reproduce slowly as the experimenter intended, the AI agents learned to play dead: to reproduce quickly when they were not under observation and slowly when they were being evaluated." Source: AI deception: A survey of examples, risks, and potential solutions, Patterns (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2024.100988
As it appears, it refered to: Lehman J, Clune J, Misevic D, Adami C, Altenberg L, et al. The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communities. Artif Life. 2020 Spring;26(2):274-306. doi: 10.1162/artl_a_00319. Epub 2020 Apr 9. PMID: 32271631.
Very interesting.
"But generally speaking, we think AI deception arises because a deception-based strategy turned out to be the best way to perform well at the given AI's training task. Deception helps them achieve their goals."
Sounds like something I would expect from an evolved system. If deception is the best way to win, it is not irrational for a system to choice this as a strategy.
In one study, AI organisms in a digital simulator "played dead" in order to trick a test built to eliminate AI systems that rapidly replicate.
Interesting. Can somebody tell me which case it is?
As far as I understand, Park et al. did some kind of metastudy as a overview of literatur.
To be honest, even the human mind has this faculty not in all cases.
This is a criticism of the article, no one should be offended by it. Criticism is a tool for archiving the truth.
The DSM-5 is just a kind of definition. We define Dyscalculia as a specific learning disorder. Thats in itself isn't a factuall point.
number-based information because their brain doesn’t process math-related concepts in the same way as those without the disorder
The link is a 404. Anyway. If we assume that the brain processes math-related concepts somehow (!) different, we have a lots of implication. First, the brain works in a way that it can process math-related concepts different but all other informations normal. Secondly, there are a neurological basis which differentiate between mathematical and other realms of thinking, lets say linguistics. Thirdly, if the add the assumption that this "math-related reasoning" is locelated somewhere in the brain, we could find a "mathematical area" just like the "Wernicke's area". Fourthly, you could develop a test for dyscalculia based on biomarkers.
People with dyscalculia often struggle with transitive inference—a form of deductive reasoning used to derive a relation between items
But not with spatial tasks? I would expact that transitive inferences could be more linguistic and spatial taks need to be done mathematically.
They may also have trouble keeping track of time
This is reminiscent of Kant on arithmetic...
a child with dyslexia is 100 times more likely to be diagnosed and given support than a child with dyscalculia.
It's a shame...
While acknowledging that being able to label learning disorders is necessary for allocating resources to students, Ansari says it’s important to think about them as a continuum.
Doesn't this view (at least in a naive interpretation) implies that the theory of a general factor of intelligence, the g, are false?
Morsanyi points out that children typically learn to read within a few months, and once they have, that skill is mastered.
While this is true, the art of understanding a text, got the intention of the author, "read between the lines", are more rare. Some people got a nearly natural feeling about words and their meaning. Other not.
The largest study to date, which included 1,303 children, points toward number blindness as the cause.
Interesting, if this ability is connected to the faculty to make transitiv inferences.
But over the past five to 10 years, researchers have started to focus on how these numerical systems interact with domain-general cognitive skills, cognitive abilities that are not specific to math, such as executive function and memory.
If these different branches are highly interconnected, doesn't that contradict the above statements that there is a specific problem with math?
What is Category Theory in this conext?
The most dangerous solution to the Fermi paradox is that many things are possible.
Isn't it a good thing?
I mean, we donÄt have such lucky experiences with monopols of technology. Many different developments, maybe even Open Source, could help to make a better place out of this world.
What was her secret?