Talk:Polanyi's paradox
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Polanyi's paradox received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hello,
My name is Handslv. I would like you to review my article on Polanyi's paradox because I want to expand my discussion further. Could you please give me some suggestions? Thanks!
--Handslv (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
URL issue
editThe URL for this page contains a Unicode smart quote: Polanyi%E2%80%99s_paradox
The page should be renamed to include an ASCII single quote, and the old URL should redirect to the new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:12C:85DE:0:0:860:27F1 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Criticism may have mistaken focus?
editWas Polanyi explicitly trying to solve an AI problem? Or was he trying to describe a characteristic of human knowledge? The bulk of the "Criticism" section here appears to me to be missing the point entirely. The assertion that Polanyi's paradox can be circumvented for the purposes of AI research does not seem to be a valid argument against his point at all, rather, it assumes he was correct, and then approaches the research project differently. Perhaps most of the current "Criticism" section should be moved, either to a separate section outside of Criticism titled something like "Implications for AI", or out of this article altogether and into an AI article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- To me, the AI discussion just seems completely out of place in this article, because even though AI research makes use of his idea, AI research has nothing to contribute toward forming or changing that idea. It's almost as if the article on Newton's laws contained a long chapter on golf. Yes, golf includes motion, but... :) TooManyFingers (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)