486 Verbs account for 90% of occurrences

Interesting

looking at citations’ meaningfulness  in Tahamtan, Iman, and Lutz Bornmann. “What Do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04588 (2019).

Bertin and Atanassova (2014) showed that in the introduction section, “70 verbs account for 50% of all verb occurrences, and 486 verbs account for 90% of the occurrences”.

Lots and lots of insights and data here ….

 

note to self. – follow up and look at related work

 

Advertisements

Stanley & Lehman – Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned

Fascinating insights by Computer Science / Artificial Intelligence profs …

https://amzn.to/2DlhLnX

some have summarized their insights by writing: “only by doing activities that fulfill our curiosity without any pre-defined objectives, true creativity can be unleashed. They call this the ‘Myth of the Objective’: Objectives are well and good when they are sufficiently modest … In fact, objectives actually become obstacles towards more exciting achievements, like those involving discovery, creativity, invention, or innovation—or even achieving true happiness… the truest path to “blue sky” discovery or to fulfill boundless ambition, is to have no objective at all.”

some of Stanley’s and Lehmans insights:

 

  • “The flash of insight is seeing the bridge to the next stepping stone by building from the old ones. ”

 

  • “[Picbreeder] is just one example of a fascinating class of phenomena that we might call non-objective search processes, or perhaps stepping stone collectors. The prolific creativity of these kinds of processes is difficult to overstate”

 

  • “ measuring success against the objective is likely to lead you on the wrong path in all sorts of situations”

 

  • “You can’t evolve intelligence in a Petri dish based on measuring intelligence. You can’t build a computer simply through determination and intellect—you need the stepping stones. ”

 

  • “ambitious objectives are the interesting ones, and the idea that the best way to achieve them is by ignoring them flies in the face of common intuition and conventional wisdom. More deeply it suggests that something is wrong at the heart of search. ”

 

 

I find their books inspiring and insightful. Reframing questions and providing different lines of attack on AI and Search Optimization to Ambitious Goals …

 

 

 

 

artificial intelligence, natural stupidity.

according to popular legends and urban myths … Amos Tversky is said to have said …

My colleagues, they study artificial intelligence; me, I study natural stupidity.

this, from CoEvolving Innovations which seems like a fascinating resource.

The blog entry there talks about Daniel Kahneman  and Amos Tversky.

The topic is fascinating.  The question of how intelligence and stupidity are related is fascinating.

There’s also a reference to Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky book Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,  that I now feel compelled to investigate

interesting factoid …Kahneman  was awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in economic sciences  despite being a psychologist, not an economist.  Which goes to show you … that Forrest Gump’s Mom was right  Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”