Artificial Intelligence software picks Rand Paul as best GOP challenger

[Cortexia]

A.I. company in Silicon Valley asked their system to determine: “Which GOP candidate has the best chance against Hillary Clinton?”

Unlike traditional A.I., this system collects input from groups of users, then applies A.I. techniques to find the optimal answer.

The video below shows the decision the system came up with: RAND PAUL!



If you want to see the FULL RESULTS, including seeing Rand Paul outperform Jeb Bush - [click here for more info].

[tod evans]

Major problem in this simulation, GOP and intelligence are kind of like oil and water in real life........



[edit]

Welcome!

[acptulsa]

Anyone who can read Page 7 of the poll report already knows that. But, hey. If some people won't believe it until a computer tells them, by all means, have this vid handy for them!

It does have a certain novelty that could get this obvious fact some additional attention.

Major problem in this simulation, GOP and intelligence are kind of like oil and water in real life........

Well, that isn't a problem with the simulation. It's predicting who will crush Clinton in the general, not predicting which of the GOP candidates that Clinton can beat the GOP will nominate instead, in their fervent desire to lose yet again.

AI is getting reasonably good at telling us how not to shoot ourselves in the foot. But for a truly compelling reason to shoot yourself in the foot, you still need Fox.

[Ronin Truth]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

[LawnWake]

It has happened. The singularity is here. Computers have become more intelligent than humans.

[Danke]

It has happened. The singularity is here. Computers have become more intelligent than humans.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-1.html

[erowe1]

Interesting. I didn't watch the vid. But I assume it underestimates the importance of being able to raise lots of money.

[acptulsa]

Interesting. I didn't watch the vid. But I assume it underestimates the importance of being able to raise lots of money.

Considering that it begins with the assumption that each candidate has won the nomination, and compares how they do in the general election against the presumed opposition, why would the programmer assume that said candidate would get any less money than any other GOP nominee has gotten after the convention? Because no matter how much the media screams that everyone should give their bribes to the Democrat or they will be wasted bribes, there are a certain number of people who will contribute to the GOP nominee--even if he's Bob Dole.

[erowe1]

Considering that it begins with the assumption that each candidate has won the nomination, and compares how they do in the general election against the presumed opposition, why would the programmer assume that said candidate would get any less money than any other GOP nominee has gotten after the convention? Because no matter how much the media screams that everyone should give their bribes to the Democrat or they will be wasted bribes, there are a certain number of people who will contribute to the GOP nominee--even if he's Bob Dole.

Because it's not so much the number of people who donate as it is the amount of wealth those people control.

[acptulsa]

Because it's not so much the number of people who donate as it is the amount of wealth those people control.

Can you not see it's both? Yeah, the rich can throw millions at you, but they're down to one percent of the population. What.ms the difference between a million from one or one each from a million, again?

In any case, Donald was kind enough to tell us all about how big donors hedge their bets and bribe everyone. And the more polls prove that Rand is about to skunk Clinton, the more they will hedge some funds his way.

[RabbitMan]

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, it isn't really artificial intelligence. As best as I could tell, it is a program that has voluntary users make choices in realtime by moving a "selection disc" in the direction they want to go. The disc represents the group's choice by sheer momentum and if there isn't enough direct opposition to the physical manifestation of Group Think, then the choice is made.

So basically a handful of volunteers chose Rand Paul. Not scientific and, to be perfectly honest, nothing of substance to glean here.

Sorry guys!

[erowe1]

Can you not see it's both? Yeah, the rich can throw millions at you, but they're down to one percent of the population. What.ms the difference between a million from one or one each from a million, again?

In any case, Donald was kind enough to tell us all about how big donors hedge their bets and bribe everyone. And the more polls prove that Rand is about to skunk Clinton, the more they will hedge some funds his way.

Over the course of history the establishment candidates have proven to have a pretty significant advantage, both in primaries and general elections. Yeah, sometimes they lose, but having the rich, and especially the banking community, in their corner is always a big advantage.

[acptulsa]

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, it isn't really artificial intelligence. As best as I could tell, it is a program that has voluntary users make choices in realtime by moving a "selection disc" in the direction they want to go. The disc represents the group's choice by sheer momentum and if there isn't enough direct opposition to the physical manifestation of Group Think, then the choice is made.

So basically a handful of volunteers chose Rand Paul. Not scientific and, to be perfectly honest, nothing of substance to glean here.

Sorry guys!

Don't apologize for giving us a sane and sensible analysis.

Over the course of history the establishment candidates have proven to have a pretty significant advantage, both in primaries and general elections. Yeah, sometimes they lose, but having the rich, and especially the banking community, in their corner is always a big advantage.

Yes. But sometimes it's both an advantage and a liability. Like when five percent of the population has managed to get favorable enough laws passed to garner 95% of the wealth. As in, like right now.

[mello]

It would have been better if the AI analyzes data about how the candidates do in the general election compared to Hillary, compared to Sanders, compared to Biden, etc.

[RabbitMan]

It would have been better if the AI analyzes data about how the candidates do in the general election compared to Hillary, compared to Sanders, compared to Biden, etc.

It isn't AI. Read my above post.

[dannno]

Because it's not so much the number of people who donate as it is the amount of wealth those people control.

The Kochs may not support Rand for the primary, but think they will support Hillary in the general? Then we have some other wealthy Rand supporters that have been a bit hesitant to go all in, but if he begins doing better or ends up winning the nomination they may decide to pull the trigger.