2020 election: Artificial Intelligence has chosen a winner - but there's a catch | The Independent

"In the case of traditional polls, there are certain groups that are very difficult to capture, and they are the ones who will ultimately decide the fate of the election," he said. "The people in rural areas, first of all they do not pick up the phone when they are called for polls, but also they don't use social media, making it very difficult to predict what these people are going to do."

This I can see.   The rural vote is very likely favorable to Trump.   This indicates how the AI-based methods suffer from the same issue as conventional polling ... getting a representative sample.    AI-based methods do not ask people questions so they are not limited by those who will volunteer to answer.   But they are limited by those who engage online and even in the USA that represents a skewed sample.

This is going to be interesting.    At least we can get that much out of this election.

The rural vote results in Arizona is going to be interesting. Mark Kelly holds a sizable amount of potential liberal Democratic votes in the large metropolitan areas of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagataff and other areas while McSally seems to hold more of the rural areas, which as stated tend to be conservative and/or Republican in makeup. Wonder what said AI makes of that?

Are there more rural or more metropolitan people? 

Population wise, it may be a even split which is what makes it interesting.

Yes, technically Trump still has a chance.

The winner will be determined by key votes in key states.  The Electoral College was designed to protect and maintain the power of the status quo.

My example is this:  Had the plurality of the vote count in 2000 determined the election there never would have been a 911, Iraq War, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, TSA or $150 OIL. 

Had the plurality of the vote count in 2000 determined the election there never would have been a 911

Really, so the Clinton CIA and intelligence community wouldn't have lost the organizing terrorists that entered and exited the US several times before Bush ever took office? I am sure Gore would have been quick to replace them all with his incoming administration./S

govinfo.library.unt

By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the "planes operation." It would eventually culminate in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda. Within al Qaeda, they relied heavily on the ideas and enterprise of strong-willed field commanders, such as KSM, to carry out worldwide terrorist operations.

KSM claims that his original plot was even grander than those carried out on 9/11-ten planes would attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. This plan was modified by Bin Ladin, KSM said, owing to its scale and complexity. Bin Ladin provided KSM with four initial operatives for suicide plane attacks within the United States, and in the fall of 1999 training for the attacks began. New recruits included four from a cell of expatriate Muslim extremists who had clustered together in Hamburg, Germany. One became the tactical commander of the operation in the United States: Mohamed Atta.

U.S. intelligence frequently picked up reports of attacks planned by al Qaeda. Working with foreign security services, the CIA broke up some al Qaeda cells. The core of Bin Ladin's organization nevertheless remained intact. In December 1999, news about the arrests of the terrorist cell in Jordan and the arrest of a terrorist at the U.S.-Canadian border became part of a "millennium alert." The government was galvanized, and the public was on alert for any possible attack.

In January 2000, the intense intelligence effort glimpsed and then lost sight of two operatives destined for the "planes operation." Spotted in Kuala Lumpur, the pair were lost passing through Bangkok. On January 15, 2000, they arrived in Los Angeles.

Because these two al Qaeda operatives had spent little time in the West and spoke little, if any, English, it is plausible that they or KSM would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact in the United States. We explored suspicions about whether these two operatives had a support network of accomplices in the United States. The evidence is thin-simply not there for some cases, more worrisome in others.

We do know that soon after arriving in California, the two al Qaeda operatives sought out and found a group of ideologically like-minded Muslims with roots in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, individuals mainly associated with a young Yemeni and others who attended a mosque in San Diego. After a brief stay in Los Angeles about which we know little, the al Qaeda operatives lived openly in San Diego under their true names. They managed to avoid attracting much attention.

By the summer of 2000, three of the four Hamburg cell members had arrived on the East Coast of the United States and had begun pilot training. In early 2001, a fourth future hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, journeyed to Arizona with another operative, Nawaf al Hazmi, and conducted his refresher pilot training there. A number of al Qaeda operatives had spent time in Arizona during the 1980s and early 1990s.

During 2000, President Bill Clinton and his advisers renewed diplomatic efforts to get Bin Ladin expelled from Afghanistan. They also renewed secret efforts with some of the Taliban's opponents-the Northern Alliance-to get enough intelligence to attack Bin Ladin directly. Diplomatic efforts centered on the new military government in Pakistan, and they did not succeed. The efforts with the Northern Alliance revived an inconclusive and secret debate about whether the United States should take sides in Afghanistan's civil war and support the Taliban's enemies. The CIA also produced a plan to improve intelligence collection on al Qaeda, including the use of a small, unmanned airplane with a video camera, known as the Predator.

After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole , evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.

As for the rest Democrats judging by how many voted for the Patriot Act and Homeland Security- don't hold your breath.

senate

justfacts.votesmart

govtrack.us

I love revisionist history. Especially when it is so easily disproven.

As for your argument that the Presidency should be decided by popular vote- try making fly over country's votes worthless. Nothing will end the US faster than removing the voting voice of millions of US citizens. 

another factor that will hurt the AI model is social media platform censorship, in order for it to predict accurately it not only has to have the information , it has to have all the information even that which is censored by platforms.

the only social medai i have is the book of face and even then its used only to stay in touch with friends and family , frankly my page is rather boring and dull......unless im being sarcastic and a major Ahole to someone on my friends list ( in a good natured ribbing way of course)

Mark,

The AI doesn't pay attention to social media. 

Btw... I learned a new term today! It's called Election Stress Disorder. Do you think that might have to do with social media and a 24 hour news cycle?

maybe i misunderstood the article or am confusing it with another one posted on the site  that the AI does comb social media . 

 as for the ESD, i think it is in full evidence here on the site . and yes i think social media and the 24 /7 news cycle can be blamed , we use to call it election burn out remember?

the point where one just wishes the whole damn thing was over .

"The AI doesn't pay attention to social media."

Did you see this seed?  

thenewstalkers

It is quite possible that it does not allow for the electoral college unpredictablity, and the other variable factors referred to in the comments above.  However, it clearly pays attention to social media.

His lab uses AI to predict the outcomes of international elections using social media traffic, focusing mainly on Twitter, a platform with over 48 million monthly active users in the US.

It's also a platform that aggressively censors pro-Trump content. That seems like a terrible foundation for making predictions about what the American people want politically.

Tacos, the team actually said, they don't know. That they can see the shortcomings of the AI.  How is that biased?

They’re trying to make some kind of scientific prediction based on a source known to be intentionally biased. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. 

perri i think the point is , for the AI to accurately be predictive ( make a good prediction) all information needs to be input and let the algorhythm do what it was taught , to put in censored or faulty input  will effect the algorhythm and thus the prediction in a skewwed manner . 

grandpa was alive when computers took upo whole rooms and were very expensive , he said about them , a waste of money , if the information put in was wrong , because it would give you a wrong answer for what you needed , though the way he said it was " you put shit in for information , you will get shit out for an answer thats wrong