<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[I&#x27;d like to know how many of the people desperate for justifying the existence of AI were admirers of statistics before.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p class="quote-inline">RE: <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/115722360006034040" rel="nofollow noopener"><span>https://</span><span>mathstodon.xyz/@tao/1157223600</span><span>06034040</span></a></p><p>I'd like to know how many of the people desperate for justifying the existence of AI were admirers of statistics before. </p><p>Statistics is a useful field, but very decidedly NOT one of problem-solving or result-generation. That's not what it's for. And yet people keep pretending that simply doing it very fast - which is literally all AI is - will, in fact, produce results &amp; solve problems. </p><p>It fucking won't, even if it looks that way. It's the wrong process. </p><p><a href="https://helvede.net/tags/AI" rel="tag">#<span>AI</span></a> <a href="https://helvede.net/tags/tech" rel="tag">#<span>tech</span></a></p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/5ba01104-db4f-437d-8d0e-b1d4671185e5/i-d-like-to-know-how-many-of-the-people-desperate-for-justifying-the-existence-of-ai-were-admirers-of-statistics-before.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:11:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/5ba01104-db4f-437d-8d0e-b1d4671185e5.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:37:42 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>