as.ft.com/r/e503690d-8...

It's an image without any people at all, just an abandoned vintage car.

It's hard to read that as a vision of a bright future. Best I can do is read it as a reference to Nevil Shute's "On the Beach", which was a vision of a future, at least.

"With few exceptions, the men who are running the [Nazi] government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere."

US Consul George S. Messersmith, Berlin 1933, in a dispatch to Washington.

And even if I had some preconceived ideas, why wouldn't I look at the paper? Science is all about falsifying old ideas. Where would science be, if people did not look at counter-arguments and evidence? Nowhere.

Occasionally, people even change their minds.

Not familiar notions, I can see.

Hmm. Blocked. Well, that was interesting.

For the record: There are a number of known limitations of machine learning and/or specific methods. Being interested in AI, of course I am interested in learning about another such result.

I don't see why I would be emotionally invested.

Wow. Are you stalking me?

Why do you find that hard to believe?

I looked at that "Reclaiming AI ..." paper to make up my own mind. Does that look like a normal scientific paper to you?

Just the fact that a ground-breaking result is not published in a proper journal should be enough to clue in PhDs.

I find that suggestion alarming. I worry if I'm out of touch.

The "Reclaiming AI" paper is a rant full of unsourced assertions. A supposedly ground-breaking proof is hidden away in an appendix. I first thought I had the wrong paper when I looked it up.

Parapsychology papers look more serious.

For anti-AI people to see the parallels between these arguments and academic creationism requires certain intellectual skills and a willingness to accept an unwelcome conclusion. IE it requires exactly that which is conspicuously absent.

Creationism seems motivated by group identity, or monetizing that identity.

Perhaps anti-AI is getting there, but it seems mostly about fearing loss of money/status.

IvR (et al) don't seem to have a creationist identity. That rant sounded a lot like status fears.

It's a simple intuition about the world. Only people create things. Rocks just lie there.

To a degree, anti-AI implies creationism. For complete rejection, you have to believe that AI algorithms based on evolution don't work either. But I feel most "Antis" would claim to be open to sci-fi AI.

I doubt if she's a creationist in the usual sense. There simply is a parallel between creationism and whatever this is:

The conviction that a "blind" process cannot create.

If it's not from a human, then it's AI slop. I don't think that all the people who have such ideas are creationists.

Does it look like a real paper? It's a rant full of unsourced assertions. A supposedly ground-breaking proof is tucked away in an appendix.

I wonder if this paper indicates a systemic problem. Diederik Stapel is Dutch, too.

It's telling, yes. Even if one forgoes all critical thought and takes the "proof" at face value, this is bonkers.

It explicitly rests on the assumption that the answer to the P vs NP problem is indeed no.

It would be more "rational" to conclude that the assumption is wrong.