It does work quite well, but the essence really is that no one understands what the structure is doing.
Not so fast...
A lot of work is being done to understand how these things work. Not least because they can go suddenly, spextacularly, wrong. Currently work is being done using the mathematics that is used also by general relativity, to understand the multi-dimensional spaces that underly these systems,
The statement "we don't know how the system works" is true of many new AI developments when they first break through. After about a year it stops being true but by that time the MSM have lost interest. Hence the public gets the impression that we don't understand how AI works - however most experts (talking in private) will admit that we DO understand how these things work - but the MSM is much more interested in you if you say that you don't.
But you don't get to say they got it wrong, you are just one voice in millions.
Sorry - you DO get to say "they got it wrong" and you DO get to say (sorrowfully) "I told you so".
The reason is this - at the end of the day there IS a right and a wrong and history will show who got it right.
The previous referendum on this issue produced a much bigger majority in the opposite direction - so if you believe that the majority then got it wrong then you can't insist that the current (much smaller) majority got it right!
If infinite monkeys can accidentally create Shakespeare, then what of an intelligent machine that can create every possible permutation of words millions of times per second? Reality check here.
A work of literature may be of arbitrary length - but just consider something similar enough - shuffling a pack of cards where each of the cards may be either inverted or right side up.
A quick calculation show that even if all the matter in the observable universe had been optimally organised into a computing machine since the big bang it wouldn't have got through all the possible combinations yet - by many orders of magnitude - so NO this particular problem doesn't exist.
Re: Wait, if they can identify factors that lead to a high risk of reoffending...
I don't see any mention of these algorithms being used to recommend education and training, psychological counselling, employment assistance, community service, or any other form of rehabilitation that might ACTUALLY reduce the recidivism rate.
When for profit prosons were first mooted in the UK the suggestion was made that they should be paid by results - ie some of the fees would be held back until the prisoner had been released and had not re-offended for a set period.
That would mean that the market mechanisms would be working in our favour and the kind of algoritms you describe would be worth investing in.
Kind of shatters the illusion that the people of the middle east really want freedom
People in the Sunni parts don't want freedom - they have been subjected to 40 years of well funded Saudi salafist propaganda. They are worse than most of the governments - which is why we should back Assad in Syria - he is bad - but he is better than any plausible alternative.
Iran - however is different. They have had nearly 40 years of Islamist extremism and have now learned to dislike it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
As for the MLK reference, you do know it was the southern democrats leading the charge against equal rights? Also, the Dems lost the civil war and spent the next 100 years trying to stop civil rights so who is really the party of the establishment?
Over long periods of time the identities of parties change because issues change. The 19th century is not comparable to the post war period.