People who aren't trying to bring science down to the level of their own superstitions would call it evidence-based.

Or when you look in the oven and see that your biscuits are brown, do you consider your conclusion that they're done to be a faith-based belief?

Or any of thousands of other evidence-based conclusions that you readily accept because they don't conflict with your religious beliefs.

But curiously, those same people reject like testimony from the followers of competing religions out of hand.

I think you haven't stumbled upon the explanation.

You're assuming that AI is supposed to mean something like HAL 9000. The overwhelming majority of AI researchers are just trying to figure out good ways to solve much smaller problems. A tiny minority are trying to model some behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. Only cranks and con artists are trying to make something like HAL 9000.

Some things AI researchers have been doing are being adopted for commerce and industry. And that appears to be accelerating.

No proof, but piles of evidence.

Let us know if you find a more reliable path to reality than evidence.

If I insisted that there were three invisible planets orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn, most people would think I was a crackpot.

If I insisted that there was an invisible being that spoke the whole universe into being, plus a lot of other invisible stuff like Heaven and souls, most people would think I knew what I was talking about.

Go figure...

Huh? I thought it was just a bog-standard troll.

If I said it, I would mean "a world view based on evidence", as opposed to tradition, arbitrary assumptions, etc.

I hate turbulence too. But I remind myself of how many flights leave my airport every day and reach their destination safely.

Why should I have any more trouble believing in an uncaused universe than in an uncaused divinity?

Actually, the atheist assumes less, because s/he merely assumes the universe. The theist has to assume a god that can speak the universe into being. (Plus heaven, hell, souls, etc.)

Ockham says, cut out the middle man.

And it's a fucking stupid thing to say: The mere fact that they're in a foxhole shows that they're putting their faith in boring old non-supernatural dirt to save them, not in their god(s).

I suspect that that extends far beyond the use of computing devices.

Thanks. I thought of Move, but couldn't think of anything for the 'A'.

Also, it's a very good definition!

This.

I once worked for a big company where all the bottom-rung departments were buying PCs and writing software to automate their work, while top-rung management was building a palace to house the new super-sized mainframe that was going to do everything for everyone. (And everyone was going to like it, whether they like it or not.)

Ah, I always wondered what the B in MBA stood for.

BTW, the mention of learning in the article & summary isn't pure spin. The region they found that produces new cells is the hippocampus, which plays some kind of role in memory consolidation.

You'll have to ask an expert whether this is going to make us rethink anything about the mechanism for learning.

(Hope this isn't a dupe... I posted it earlier, but must have forgotten to click the Submit button.)

They would certainly be able to sue; getting justice is a different matter.