exprofmaddy

Agree on all points. It's worth asking: who maintains the academic incentive structures? If the social structures are harming science (e.g., promoting fraud), why do the social structures persist? Who or what stymies reform? As I've asked these questions, I am led to blame (i) scientists who gain power broker status by playing the game and (ii) university administrators who benefit from larger production numbers (dollars, papers, enrollment, awards).

I see. For you, "people on the ground" includes a grand child's comment. In my experience, "people on the ground" has implied "don't try to do anything on your own," which dissuades action and consequently promotes the status quo's persistence. When you say "dissemination network," I hear you saying a group of people is necessary. But a group is not necessary. A group is one possible way. But powerful people are influenced by far less than a group of people every day. See also: lobbyists. "Start a popular ideological movement" and "become a lobbyist" warrant very different life choices.

I think calling problem articulation "just sophistry" is overly reductionist. People who make the effort to articulate the problems (e.g., some Chronicle of Higher Ed writers) offer thoughtful readers other possibilities for consideration. Then, in the rare case that a powerful decision-maker perceives a tension in the status quo, there exist well articulated potential actions to resolve the tension. This is why think-tanks write white papers. The narrative that "people on the ground" is a necessary condition for reform dissuades thoughtful problem articulation. "People on the ground" is one way to influence decision-makers, but it is not necessary. Watch CSPAN when a septuagenarian Senator references his/her granddaughter's comment as influencing his/her vote.

This article and most of the comments ignore the social power dynamics and status quo institutional structures of academic science (Science 2): university administrators, power-broker faculty researchers, funding agencies (til recently), publishing companies, higher-ed consultants, etc. There are thousands of potential reforms that would bring Science 2 closer to Science 1 and generally make science life better. Those reforms are articulated by competent scientists and higher ed journalists every day. If you want to know why science reform isn't happening, ask which powerful interests are benefiting from the existing structures.

Power makes people stupid: powerful people can't imagine a world other than the one that brought them their power. They will say, "That's the way the world is." Let's encourage students to continue to imagine other possible worlds in order to challenge the status quo.

Julius Smith's recent book on physical modeling: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/

Agreed. Drummer and programmer here. I consider electronic drums to be a different instrument from acoustic drums---especially cymbals---with somewhat comparable musical functions. The advantage of e-drums is that the sound guy can turn the volume down to zero no matter how hard I'm hitting, and that's helpful in places like churches or my apartment. The other advantage is that toms (i.e., the tom samples) are always perfectly and consistently tuned. Apart from those advantages, there's far less traditional drum expressiveness in e-drums (for traditional genres like jazz and rock). The flip side is: with e-drums I can hit the cymbal and make a laser noise.

People wish to feel safe. One path to safety is controlling or managing the environment. Lack of sufficient control produces anxiety. But control is only possible if the environment is predictable, i.e., relatively certain knowledge that if I do X then the environment responds with Y. Humans use models for prediction. Loosely speaking, if the universe is truly mechanistic/deterministic, then the goal of modeling is to get the correct model (though notions of "goals" are problematic in determinism without real counterfactuals). However, if we can't know whether the universe is truly deterministic, then modeling is a pragmatic exercise in control (or management).

My comments are not about simulating the universe on a real machine. They're about the validity and value of math/computational modeling in a universe where determinism is scientifically indeterminable.

For example, the Euler equations model compressible flow with discontinuities (shocks in the flow field variables) and rarefaction waves. These theories are accepted and used routinely.

"sufficiently large machine" ... It's a thought experiment. Leibniz didn't have a computer, but he still imagined it.

Some differential equations that model physics admit singularities and multiple solutions. Therefore, functions are not the most general way of describing relations. Functions are a subset of relations.

Although "non-deterministic" and "stochastic" are often used interchangeably, they are not equivalent. Probability is applied analysis whose objects are distributions. Analysis is a form of deductive, i.e. mechanical, reasoning. Therefore, it's more accurate (philosophically) to identify mathematical probability with determinism. Probability is a model for our experience. That doesn't mean our experience is truly probabilistic.

Humans aren't exceptional. Math modeling and reasoning are human activities.

The universal approximation theorem is set in a precise mathematical context; I encourage you to limit its applicability to that context despite the marketing label "universal" (which it isn't). Consider your concession about empiricism. There's no empirical way to prove (i.e. there's no experiment that can demonstrate beyond doubt) that all brain or other organic processes are deterministic and can be represented completely as functions.

Agreed. If someone believes the world is purely mechanistic, then it follows that a sufficiently large computing machine can model the world---like Leibniz's Ratiocinator. The intoxication may stem from the potential for predictability and control.

The irony is: why would someone want control if they don't have true choice? Unfortunately, such a question rarely pierces the intoxicated mind when this mind is preoccupied with pass the class, get an A, get a job, buy a house, raise funds, sell the product, win clients, gain status, eat right, exercise, check insta, watch the game, binge the show, post on Reddit, etc.

I'm with you. Interpreting a problem as a problem requires a human (1) to recognize the problem and (2) to convince other humans that it's a problem worth solving. Both involve value, and value has no computational or mechanistic description (other than "given" or "illusion"). Once humans have identified a problem, they might employ a tool to find the solution. The tool has no sense that the problem is important or even hard; such values are imposed by the tool's users.

It's worth considering why "everyone seems all too ready to make ... leaps ..." "Neural", "intelligence", "learning", and others are metaphors that have performed very well as marketing slogans. Behind the marketing slogans are deep-pocketed, platformed corporate and government (i.e. socio-rational collective) interests. Educational institutions (another socio-rational collective) and their leaders have on the whole postured as trainers and preparers for the "real world" (i.e. a job), which means they accept, support, and promote the corporate narratives about techno-utopia. Which institutions are left to check the narratives? Who has time to ask questions given the need to learn all the technobabble (by paying hundreds of thousands for 120 university credits) to become a competitive job candidate?

I've found there are many voices speaking against the hype---indeed, even (rightly) questioning the epistemic underpinnings of AI. But they're ignored and out-shouted by tech marketing, fundraising politicians, and engagement-driven media.

Sorry I triggered you.

It seems the humans pursuing AGI lack sufficient natural intelligence. I'm sad that humans with such narrow and misguided perspectives have so much power, money, and influence. I worry this won't end well.

A better name for "laws" is "models."

Where do you go to meet real humans and have social interaction?

This story is also told in Nicholas Carr's bestseller 'The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains' https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=16

Some very nice related works that dispel widespread math myths: (1) What Is Mathematics, Really? Hersh, 1997. https://books.google.com/books/about/What_is_Mathematics_Rea... (2) Where Mathematics Comes From. Lakoff and Nunez, 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From