Trurl

Well I don’t know if AI thinks yet. But I can imagine a.day when we create intelligent life forms. We are AI. But even if you don’t feel the same it doesn’t matter because AI threatens to ruin every creative experience humans have. Why would I hire a graphic artist when AI will generate any picture I want. Sixty Minutes had Watson on a few years and he picked better therapies from research than the doctors. We can fold proteins with AI or map genes. But if we don’t logically find patterns and analyze the data in meaningful ways the AI gives an endless pile of junk data. The problem I see is how do we sort this data? And how do we prevent AI from replacing us? Science fiction reads like Biblical stories. There are unique characters and stories of what is possible. The stories are interesting and always deal with morals. AI may not be at an advanced level yet, but we already know the implications and problems it causes.

There was a reboot of Quantum Leap that was excellent. It picked up where the original left off. Only 2 seasons.

I mean AI is processing millions of patterns which adds to the whole mess of billions of data. Things we cannot do without AI like correlate thousands of research papers produces even more data. But if you read The Sixth Sally you will understand.

Well probably just my ignorance of the subject. You know more than me GrantRat. But why so many stats? I know they are the simplest way to summarize complex data but are they universal and is it easy to compare between papers? I wrote the previous post with some creative writing. But no one can tell because they have not read every post in different threads. I reference the Cyberaid and the demon of the second kind to point out that so much of journal entries are infinite, useless information. It isn’t so much useless as it is to much to process. So we have AI sort it to produce even larger pieces of information that we can’t process. All of these statistical information is data science. I was interested in reading research papers because I wanted to study the computational mathematics of biology papers. Specifically I am interested in nerves and multiple sclerosis. I am also interested in genetics. Is this the area you research? I am an amateur computational scientist. I have plans to write a research paper on my simple yet interesting post. I think it does what I say, but does it reduce computation, maybe not? I mention AI because it looks to take the job of data scientists. I hope scientists can stay ahead of AI’s pattern recognition. But I am interested in hearing any advice. I am interested in journals not because I’m an academic. I just want to learn and see if I can apply computational math.

I am not a doctor, I don’t know how often it happens. I just read the book. But this often occurs when they are dealing with the unknown. We all heard of people going to see multiple doctors or patients being misdiagnosed. My question is are the statics helping or hindering how we judge a credible paper? They give you a way to sum up a paper after the abstract, but using stats to summarize the value of a paper imho would lead to disagreement among doctors. Obviously there must be other sorting and cataloging methods, but I am focusing on stats. For instance there was a study report on the local news that processed red meat consumption increased risk of dementia 13%. That is useful and sounds like a worthwhile study. But can we use these stats to compare to other works? This is computational science. The rest of this post is just mho and is meant more for discussion than factual science. But the red meat study followed 30,000 people for several years. I think data science is being applied to everything to find the big discovery. Instead we are getting massive amounts of endless data. So we turn to ai to sort this data. The Sixth Sally or How Trurl and Klapaucius Created a Demon of the Second Kind to Defeat the Pirate Pugg This story explains everything.

Well let me say I am not trying to discredit statistics. I am just finding some idiosyncrasies in them. Are research papers and statistics useful in answering unknown problems in the medical field? Well I have been reading that book How to Read Papers and it seems that unknown answers are based on opinions supported by facts but still basically a judgement call. The book even says given the same facts 2 doctors can have different interpretations. Meta studies compare the results of many papers. I talked with a med student a few weeks ago. He mentioned meta studies, but had a hard time explaining how such decisions are made. AI probably helps. And obviously if the problem is unknown the doctor is looking for the best treatment the research is the only option. Again I am not saying research papers don’t have use or the doctor making a judgement call is wrong. That is just how it works. I’m just saying some science is art form.

Ever meet someone that says, “If I watch the game they will lose.” They believe this. But imagine they watched a game and the team won. Would this end the streak of always seeing them lose? Scientifically there is no way to prove or disprove this theory of losing. Obviously just being a spectator you have no influence on the game, or do you? What if by watching the game you are subconsciously predicting the odds on who will win? If you watch this game, you may have wanted to break the cycle and thought the team had a chance of wining. I am reading a book that talks about random samples. But the question is what is random? Isn’t it that a random sample can look like anything. We are looking for a bell curve where the rare cases are small in number. Everything starts with the average somehow being random. But what if you are in gym class, testing to see how many free throws you can make out of 20. Five to 10 would be average, but what about the skilled player who practices all the time makes 18 out of 20. He has just broke average statistically and on the bell curve compared to the others. My question is: if random looks like anything, and we can’t achieve it by selecting a sample then why are we always compare the test group to average? I understand the importance of statistics, but we start to compare things that don’t compare to each other. We have research statics that contradict one another. So we use a meta study to compare statics that contradict. All to be debated by doctors who disagree on the data. I was surprised on so many medical decisions being judgement calls. I know the scientific method is logical, but the answer is not always clear. Science changes over time. I love the statics in sports. But as the news sportscaster says, “At the end of the day, you still have to play the game.”

So Out [77] is the semiPrime. The RSA-260 number not factored. Out [76] is the larger Prime factor. Out [75] is the smaller Prime factor. It was found by finding what the x-value of the graph is while the y-value of the graph equals zero. So we know that this x-value of the graph can be no larger than where the y-value equals zero. And we plug that x-value into the equation y = (((pnp^2/x) + x^2)/pnp) to find that y in the equation is smaller than the x value in the equation. So we switch x and y of the equation. To find Out [75]. So we know that the SemiPrime factor x is no less than Out [75]. And the larger we test for x of the equation, y of the equation must be smaller then Out [76]. So now we crunch numbers by division, increasing in incrementation and test those numbers from Out [75] until we find the smaller Prime factor, x.

What does that $35 have to cover in expenses? Presumably the author gets a chunk. How much has to be paid out to the AI system that wrote your book? I think the total price of the book is to maximize profit. I’m saying $35 is about the average price of a tech book. Books tend to be based on market value. Like in the old days when college students complained about the price of textbooks. And if you bought used the book was missing something essential. But that is a problem of the past. There is emerging new was to screw us when we buy books. As of now I don’t think ai owns intellectual property. So writing the book is free. But that is a scary thought though. That we would have to pay ai for thoughts. But would we ever write books again. The author would spend a year researching with the end result of thousands of ai clones on the day it was published.

Is that print on demand? Ten or fifteen years ago average price for a computer programming book was above $20. Today a similar book is about $35. So I paid $40. Amazon takes say 40%. Say it cost $20 to print. I don’t have the real numbers. But you’re right $40 is pricey for a book. So even after print there is plenty of profit. This guy is at a great time in the market. That is just before the market is saturated with ai books and when the technology exists to set up a business in hours. We could do the same business but it would ruin our reputations.

Yes, but why write a book in A.I. and not declare you did so? When you write a book it is supposed to signify you are an expert. Why a 6 book series? I don’t like ai already. The information I the book is true, but overall it degrades the entire system. (That is the print media system.) Well printing is extremely expensive. I don’t know how printing on demand saves money. Someone found an automated process where every step of the process from creation to distribution is automatic. You set it up in 2 hours and it makes money for you. After all a book on rocket equations is geek porn. A book that cost $40 that talks about space has potential to make thousands and it took 2 hours to make.

I purchased this book back in December. There was online five star review. It had an equation with a Python program. Not difficult to understand but only brief explanations. It turns out Chat GPT wrote the entire book. There are no references or bibliography. But the rip off is there is an entire series of books written this way. They sale for $40 and are printed on demand. I don’t know how this turns a profit but there are 6 books in the space series and more in the mechanical engineering series. This spoils the field for legitimate authors. And readers. If you believe that foreign actors can influence the election or TikTok influences teens, is this book scam a way to undermine legitimate authors and readers?

My interest in research papers is because I want to write one called: “The Range of Factors of a SemiPrime.” But this book, How to Read a Paper, deals with how to sort through mountain of papers to get pertinent information. So far I have found papers that are easy to understand. I don’t think I have access to ground breaking research but that would not help anyways if I can’t make sense of it. As I stated in the Lounge, I am interested in bioinformatics. I am not a biologist. But someone told me that a study said that if a person got shingles as a child they would not develop multiple sclerosis. This is before the World Wide Web and I haven’t found such a study. I have found that viruses cause both diseases. I know I have no scientific proof but viruses seem to be designed. Why would a device that alters dna be evolved. In MS why would one’s own immune system attack only their own nerve cells? Like a computer virus, it was programmed for a specific result. Has anyone heard of such a study? Not that viruses being designed, but of the shingles and MS? And is a virus just an instruction set or can these things think? I am totally serious. These things can alter dna and proteins something that modern computers can’t. Why hasn’t it been considered these things are intelligent?

There is an episode of Macgyver where he is in a hiking race and must activate a beacon every waypoint. He gets into trouble with Bigfoot and puts the beacons into an oil line and sets them off hundreds of miles away to create a destress call. And if you don’t know who Macgyver is you haven’t been paying attention in history class.

Well I read the preface and chapter 1 of “How to Read a Paper.” It gives you respect for medical doctors. You think if a career that is base on high pressure decisions there would be a “correct” answer. But the author says that future chapters will help you manage a world of papers that is information overload and papers with conflicting data. A book in the “Dummies” series of books would never address this. Some times papers are argued like politics. I say this not as an expert reader. I base this on how the media reports statics in unintelligible ways. I will keep you posted on my review of the book.