![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://science.slashdot.org/science/07/06/12/2213233.shtml
I haven't read the paper yet...but I suspect that this is one of those cases in which the process of building a model obscures the fact that the inputs and objective functions are not well-defined.
Nevertheless I plan on checking this out at some point.
I haven't read the paper yet...but I suspect that this is one of those cases in which the process of building a model obscures the fact that the inputs and objective functions are not well-defined.
Nevertheless I plan on checking this out at some point.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
GIGO?
Date: 13 June 2007 15:39 (UTC)Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's short story, "The Machine That Won the War".
"Three influential leaders of the human race meet in the aftermath of a successful war against the Denebians. Discussing how the vast and powerful Multivac computer was a decisive factor in the war, each of the men admits that in fact he falsified his part of the decision process because he felt that the situation was too complex to follow normal procedures. The first admits that he altered the data being fed to Multivac, since the populace could not be trusted to report accurate information in the current situation. The second admits that he altered the data that Multivac produced, since he knew that the data being input was incorrect and could not trust Multivac's analyses. The story ends with the last of the three admitting that he had made the final decision purely on the toss of a coin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_that_Won_the_War