Dear Luca, consider me provoked, even antagonized -- not just by your quoting the (in my unenlightened view) totally bogus uncertainty index, but also by your last paragraph!
Sadly, I have to admit this is an excellent post making a very important point, so rather than fighting it I will add just one comment:
The initial wave of "data is the new oil" was driven by justified enthusiasm at finally having better tools for discovering the "signal" hidden in the data and not visible to the naked eye.
The current AI craze ignores GenAI's inability to see the "noise" and misinformation hidden in plain sight in the data (even when they are obvious to the naked eye of common sense). Which of course come from these AIs not having a model of reality or any...how do we usually call it?...intelligence.
We humans, sadly, are often prone to seeing intelligence where there is none and missing it where it's abundant. In retrospect, the Turing test seems naively misguided.
Dear Luca, consider me provoked, even antagonized -- not just by your quoting the (in my unenlightened view) totally bogus uncertainty index, but also by your last paragraph!
Sadly, I have to admit this is an excellent post making a very important point, so rather than fighting it I will add just one comment:
The initial wave of "data is the new oil" was driven by justified enthusiasm at finally having better tools for discovering the "signal" hidden in the data and not visible to the naked eye.
The current AI craze ignores GenAI's inability to see the "noise" and misinformation hidden in plain sight in the data (even when they are obvious to the naked eye of common sense). Which of course come from these AIs not having a model of reality or any...how do we usually call it?...intelligence.
We humans, sadly, are often prone to seeing intelligence where there is none and missing it where it's abundant. In retrospect, the Turing test seems naively misguided.
But I'm in no hurry, I will be patient.