2451: AI Methodology

|< < Prev Comic #2451 (April 16, 2021) Next > >|

AI Methodology

Title text: We've learned that weird spacing and diacritics in the methodology description are apparently the key to good research; luckily, we've developed an AI tool to help us figure out where to add them.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT. TRAINED BY AN ADVERSARIAL AI. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

The joke in this comic is that the classifier sucks.

This comic shows Cueball giving a presentation of some description. He is reassuring his audience of the validity of his research's methodology, which he says is "AI-based". There are many issues that can arise from an AI-based methodology, such as lingering influence from its training data or a bad algorithm reducing the quality of the investigation.

Cueball seeks to reassure his audience by quantifying the quality of his methodology. He does this by creating yet another AI to rank methodologies. This would not actually improve the confidence of any audience member, as the AI would still have the same flaws as the methodology AI, due to being created by the same team.

Furthermore, the AI heavily favours the methodology of Cueball's AI, and may be biased. It shows a normal distribution, with a singular outlier to the far right with an arrow above. It can be inferred this datapoint represents the AI's methodology. It is a significant outlier, and as such it is probably not an accurate representation of Cueball's AI.

The title text is likely a continuation of Cueball's dialogue, saying his AI showed good research required weird spacing and diacritics in the methodology description. Cueball then used his AI to figure out where to put these into his own methodologies to improve his research. Adding weird symbols into a text doesn't improve the quality of the text [citation needed] and hence Cueball may be doing something very similar to p-hacking, where data is manipualted to decrease the p-number, which represents the likelihood the data is a fluke. This is covered in 882: Significant

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[Cueball stands in front of a projection on a screen and points with a stick to a histogram with a bell curve to the left and one bar to the far right marked with an arrow]

Cueball: Despite our great research results, some have questioned our AI-based methodology.

Cueball: But we trained a classifier on a collection of good and bad methodology sections, and it says ours is fine.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

I checked with severαl bots, & replαcing eαch instαnce of "a" with "α" in α mid-length pαssαge of text seems enough to sαtisfy most unicity requirements. (~~ unsigned by ProphetZarquon ~~)

• But then the spell-checkers (AI-based or not) start screaming about the unknown words. Nutster (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

An alternate explanation would be the AI's have reached Singularity and are conspiring to say that all work, as a conscious effort, despite the quality of data. "Don't worry; be happy." Nutster (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a spoof of the recent reports of things like facial recognition systems that have trouble with minorities. Or Google/YouTube recommendation algorithms that show the user sites that confirm their biases. Barmar (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

i think the methodology ai is dodgy and has inbuilt preferences to pick other ai options over others, regardless of their validity. kinda like ai nepotism (~~ unsigned by 141.101.98.174 ~~)

I think it’s interesting that no one has thought to define AI, as if everybody should know what this means! (~~ unsigned by 172.69.35.175 ~~)

Artificial Intelligence. And yes, everyone DOES kind of know what it is Hiihaveanaccount (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph (“The joke is...”) is not justified. Too many details that cannot be inferred from the comic, even using AI. (~~ unsigned by 141.101.69.109 ~~)

My AI infers that the joke is a toaster... 141.101.98.16 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (PS, what is it with everyone not bothering to sign things?)

That article is three years old and it's STILL not most popular print on T-shirts and bumper sticker image? -- Hkmaly (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Methodology and methodology section likely refer to distinct things. Methodology section is part of the research paper, while methodology refers to how the research was actually performed. 108.162.241.160 09:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten most of the explanation to better describe AI-related concepts. I would appreciate edits or comments if anything is unclear. I have tried to define all terms, but as I am familiar with them, I may be using jargon too much. 172.69.170.50 04:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I high or is the graph actually a map of the click and drag comic?