2451: AI Methodology

2021-04-18T12:34:04Z

162.158.63.140:

{{comic
| number = 2451
| date = April 16, 2021
| title = AI Methodology
| image = ai_methodology.png
| titletext = 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==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT (91%). TRAINED BY AN ADVERSARIAL AI (72%). If you are knowledgeable about AI, please rewrite at least one paragraph for us. The current content was completely fudged by amateurs. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The joke in this comic is that the people are using {{w|artificial intelligence}} (AI) without understanding how to, and that by doing this networks of AI are controlling our research. The classifier is trained on data that doesn't include the causes of the results and may have even been generated from the same codebase, and then not tested it at all, producing a model that is both random and heavily overfitted. Such a model appears perfect but makes random predictions on new data. The hover text is describing this happening, and how. For an introduction to machine learning, you can visit https://fast.ai/ .

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 any flaws of the methodology AI would likely be shared by the ranking AI, due to being created by the same team.

Furthermore, the ranking 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 (from the arrow) that this data-point represents the AI's methodology. It is a significant outlier, and as such it is probably not an accurate representation of Cueball's AI. Alternatively, this could be taken as AI 'nepotism', where Cueball's methodology AI is more likely to select AI-based approaches over others. This type of algorithmic bias is mentioned in [[2237: AI Hiring Algorithm]]. Another explanation would be that the x axis measures something other than "how good the methodology is" (e.g., rate of highly significant results), and the fact that Cueball's AI is not within the normal distribution should have been a red flag indicating a problem with their methodology, but the ranking AI didn't notice the skew / correctly interpret the meaning of the data. (However, the title text seems to indicate that the x axis was indeed labeled by "quality of methodology", albeit defining this quality by very strange criteria.)

The title text is likely a continuation of Cueball's dialogue, saying that when the classifying AI was shown good research methodology descriptions, the AI identified weird spacing and diacritics as the indicators of a good methodology. Cueball then used his AI to figure out where to put these into his own methodology description to improve his research report. Adding weird symbols into a text doesn't improve the quality of the text<sup>[[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''çıẗá ŧįø ɳŋ ēẽ đêð'']]]</sup> and hence Cueball may be doing something very similar to p-hacking, where data is manipulated to decrease the p-number, which represents the likelihood the data is a fluke. P-hacking is mentioned in [[882: Significant]]

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[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.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:2447: Hammer Incident

2021-04-08T09:03:27Z

162.158.63.140:

big --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.153|162.158.187.153]] 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a basic explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.224|162.158.212.224]] 02:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
== Giant comic ==

Is it meant to be that size? Does the bad luck apply to trying to upload comics at reasonable sizes?

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.19|172.69.33.19]] 02:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:Oooh boy, indeed... "Error creating thumbnail: File with dimensions greater than 12.5 MP" is the Wiki's assessment of the auto-uploaded image. I haven't checked the resolution, but the https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hammer_incident.png one is apparently 4332x4838 (scales to 8% on my device), and I don't care to test the _2x version right now. I'm not sure that was the native res of it on creation, looks to be an accidental up-scaling prior to posting to xkcd itself. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.6|141.101.98.6]] 02:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

::The _2x version is actually the proper size for a normal comic - 578x645 pixels. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 02:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Still seems larger than normal to me, even the 2x seems larger than I would expect. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.78|172.69.34.78]] 04:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:Maybe the extra-large image is what the original looks like using the James Webb telescope? Maybe over-thinking. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.145|172.68.132.145]] 04:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
::Or perhaps its an resolution/aspect ratio/zoom factor difference between it and the old telescope. Implying all other comics have secretly been placed in front of the other telescope [[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.50|172.69.170.50]] 04:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:Perhaps overthinking, if the main reflecting mirror was actually destroyed, the light entering the telescope would never be focused into the secondary mirror and the image would be "light size" so you would only be able to see a small portion of what you expect

:It looks to me that, while most of the text is rendered smoothly in full resolution, the caption below the panel ("Man, NASA is really on my case about the James Webb Space Telescope.") is very jaggy on a pixel level, but only on the Y-axis. There could be quite a bit of information in there. No idea what it means, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.36|141.101.77.36]] 07:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
::It could be floating-point errors that indicate the code flow of the renderer Randall used. Or it could mean anything else. Curious to compare it to a correct rendering of that text with the same font, but wouldn't know what to do with the vector of edge differences myself. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.140|162.158.63.140]] 09:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

== inspiration ==

When I read this comic I was worried it might have been inspired by recent news of something breaking during the final assembly process. Fortunately this seems not to be the case. Among the many delays of the telescope, were any of them caused by mirror and/or cryo failures that might have inspired this comic? [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 05:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:What caused the most recent delay? It seems it's been pushed forward more as Randall predicted in the other comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.140|162.158.63.140]] 09:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2451: AI Methodology

Talk:2447: Hammer Incident