Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AI Misinformation Epidemic

approximatelycorrect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#161

Post by ilaksh »

wiricon wrote: post #111
ilaksh wrote: post #75

Most of the people who have a strong machine learning or deep learning background are actually unaware of the large amount of existing research that applies to artificial general intelligence (AGI) because that group is just not mainstream. But there are groups who are combining cutting edge neural network research with AGI and seriously trying to build general intelligence. Researchers who are working on narrow AI t…

Care to share links to those labs' websites/relevant papers? I'm a deep learning researcher, and I've been noticing this gap that you mentioned between the DL community and what everyone else in AI is doing, and think it might be worthwhile trying to bridge that gap.

Google for publications by Deep Mind, Ogma, Good AI, Open AI, Numenta, OpenCog, 'Towards Deep Developmental Learning', projects related to new DARPA program 'L2M'. Also search for projects labeled AGI.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#162

Post by devdoomari »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #39
ExactoKnight wrote: post #26

The AI and Singularity hype irks me, because I'm genuinely in agreement with Peter Thiel's argument that technological progress is actually decelerating relative to how it was moving 60 years ago once you look beyond the advancements we have experienced in information technology and finance.

That's ridiculous. Everyone has a personal computer in their pocket and can communicate with anyone in seconds across the world. The world's libraries are at your fingertips by mail order or on your screen. We may not be on the cusp of a singularity, but that's nothing to be ashamed of. We should be proud we haven't seen a major world war in 70 years.

culturally/politically, yes we should be proud...

but 'everyone can communicate with anyone' also meant everyone has access to FB, snapchat, worthless videos, and so on for distraction :(

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#163

Post by prance »

c0ntrarian wrote: post #131

This is a very offensive epithet and I demand you rescind it immediately. Just because you have your own language does not mean you can make up hurtful words in English.

In German we have "Fachidiot", which is not pronounced like the Dutch 'vakidioot' at all, but many English speakers would do so nevertheless. You're free to rescind your own abomination of that word :D

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#164

Post by erkkie »

TuringNYC wrote: post #110
erkkie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should people be able to tell the difference vs the outcome of those products, unless someone (investors?) is specifically just buying into the AI hype itself? (in which case, this is nothing different from when everything was "social")

I'm not saying people should be able to tell the difference, nor am I discounting the value of the final outcome. Just that pitching an app as ML-driven, when it is barely 1% ML-driven is deceptive and mis-informs the public. Consider taking the side mirror from a Ferrari, putting it on a Ford Escort, and then pitching the Ford Escort as a race-car. The Ford Escort may be a great family car, but it is not a sports ca…

I get (and perhaps even agree) to the sentiment, logically at least, but realistically all marketing is deceptive. It's pragmatically more useful to understand the how's and why's of that and play along.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#165

Post by jacquesm »

ewjordan wrote: post #74
Banthum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True that. 1880-1950 (70 years) took us from train-and-telegraph to jet-and-atom bomb. Horse and carriage was the top-tier tech for personal transportation in 1880, and they were just starting to understand that diseases are often caused by these little blobby creatures called germs. 1950-2020 (70 years) will take us much less distance. Almost everything we're developing seems to be about information processing. If y…

To reuse a point brought up quite often in this context, making predictions about when and if AGI might arrive based on extrapolations of current technological trends is like trying to predict when the atom bomb would have been created based on a chart of conventional explosive yields leading up to 1940. Undiscovered discoveries are not predictable, certainly not by extrapolating from the current progress. This appli…

The idea of the atom bomb was well established prior to 1940, the question was who would get there first, not if it was possible.

1934 was a turning point in this respect, by the 1940's it wasn't a question any more of whether or not atom bombs could be created, it was more a question of 'how' than 'if'.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#166

Post by akyu »

I'm not sure which I find more annoying; the AI hypers, or the who people who insist that machine learning is "basically just matrix multiplication". As a researcher none of it makes a difference to me either way.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#167

Post by wang_li »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #99
robotresearcher wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it was a greater achievement to get the first 10^4 people online than the next 10^9. More of the same-or-slightly-smaller. I certainly got more delta-value out of pre-web Internet (email, Usenet, chat) and Web 1.0 (online papers and libraries, nearly-free publishing) than Web 2.0 onwards (Facebook, etc). Maybe it's not accelerating constantly.

I think you're really underselling things like 3G data plans which are now worldwide. That didn't exist 10 years ago. Even just the widespread use of SMS has helped medical teams assess and treat diseases in remote areas. When people complain about some lack of technological advancements, it sounds to me like they're just not aware of what we have accomplished. And I am not surprised that Thiel is in this category. H…

There's a big difference between technological advancements and engineering & standard development. Deploying a cell network is an engineering and logistical task, not a feat of invention.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#168

Post by VHRanger »

iwintermute wrote: post #160
VHRanger wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we agree that the state of the scientific field is as good as a decisions taken based on the achievements in this field? Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement about whether or not there's climate change and/or how anthropogenic it is. Even if you have massive amounts of evidence pointing to something, if it goes against entrenched interests, nothing is going to be done.…

> Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement Looking at Europe - I see the decisions, policies and agreement. Looking at USA I see conscious decision to ignore the science predictions when it suits some political goals in short term and not to ignore when it's vital - like when planning military strategy in Middle East. So I think my point still stands.

How many coal mines or tar sands fields are there in europe?

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#169

Post by jacquesm »

arethuza wrote: post #84
Banthum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True that. 1880-1950 (70 years) took us from train-and-telegraph to jet-and-atom bomb. Horse and carriage was the top-tier tech for personal transportation in 1880, and they were just starting to understand that diseases are often caused by these little blobby creatures called germs. 1950-2020 (70 years) will take us much less distance. Almost everything we're developing seems to be about information processing. If y…

Not sure about your bridges point - I see the bridges over the Forth most days which are from the 1880s, 1960s and the new one opening this year and they all look pretty different to me (cantilever, suspension & cable stay respectively). Would something like the Millau Viaduct have been possible in the 1960s?

> Would something like the Millau Viaduct have been possible in the 1960s?

That's two questions in one.

The crossing of large spans was a solved problem in Roman times (pillars and arches).

To do it exactly like that did not require anything new in terms of materials, but there would have been quite a problem getting such a design approved without the computational homework done that it would work well in all weather conditions. Which in turn would likely lead to it being overdesigned.

Computers are excellent at such simulations leading to a higher degree of confidence in designs that have never been tried before or that push the envelope in some manner.

Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic

#170

Post by gbog »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #146
ilaksh wrote: post #75

Most of the people who have a strong machine learning or deep learning background are actually unaware of the large amount of existing research that applies to artificial general intelligence (AGI) because that group is just not mainstream. But there are groups who are combining cutting edge neural network research with AGI and seriously trying to build general intelligence. Researchers who are working on narrow AI t…

Honestly I think trying to top down design general intelligence is a mistake. The only model of intelligence we have resulted from the gradual agglomeration and integration of narrow intelligences. Not only is it a demonstrated path, but at every point along the way it is useful. Nature has given us a great roadmap, all we have to do is follow it.

Nature do not always give the correct roadmap. Planes are no birds. Humans tried for a long time to mimic birds with flapping wings and failed, sometime to their death. I think it may be the same with AI: trying to mimic human, or even animal's intelligence is the wrong path. We need to find "Computer intelligence", which might be very different in its process and usage.
Post reply on HN