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

Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#171

Post by Kraxenbichler »

deafcalculus wrote: post #163
Animats wrote: post #124

I've been down this road. I used to be interested in "embodiment" as a path to AI, but in the sense of things that could move around in the physical world, not fall down, and not bump into stuff. Low-end mammal level AI was the goal - mouse level. I made some progress in that area [1], hit the limits of available simulators, spent several years on improving physics engine technology, and eventually sold that off to a…

What's the killer app for mouse level AI?

With the right priors - self-driving cars, for example.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#173

Post by ksec »

Is the Author arguing there will be another AI Winter?

I have a simple theory ( I am not sure if there is a proper term for it ) that goes and solve all the above problem mentioned.

When ever a technology that is capable of producing some form of economical value, it will continue to improve and tackle what ever hurdle or barrier you think it has.

In all of the previous AI era, research were funded by government or large company like iBM. But none of those has ever made a impact or profits that value more then you have invested in. Expert System never caught on.

And this is why everyone is excited, for the first time ever we have AI ( Machine Learning ) producing useful results in a MUCH MORE cost effective way. And these saving will means companies are investing back into AI research for further improvement and benefits. The whole AI research has created a self sustained cycle that we know, at least for the next 5 - 10 years will not be lacking any fundings.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#174

Post by yters »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #145
yters wrote: post #144

Why does everyone assume human intelligence is computable? Seems we should be checking that assumption at this point since we've made so little progress, and a definitive answer is much more valuable than this ongoing speculation.

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

It's alright, but I don't recall the book articulating actions computers cannot do. It seemed to still leave open the possibility that we can automate all human work. What we need is a precise task that humans can do with ease but we can prove is impossible for any computational device whatsoever.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#176

Post by mehh »

candiodari wrote: post #162
unix1 wrote: post #142

In 1988 Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus released a paperback version of their previously published "Mind over Machine" book, in which they mostly spend time debunking the myth that expert systems and rule-based programs are ever going to have "intelligence" on par with human brain. The book is an interesting read in itself, but what I found remarkable is that in the 1988 release they added a "preface to paper…

> There have been no new breakthroughs in this area. Most of the research being done is in application of what we have known for decades in specific areas, with minor insights into tweaks and uses of combinations ... There are 2 huge problems with that: 1) nobody is trying to "embody" an intelligence with any sort of research project behind it. Nobody's even trying to create an artificial individual using neural netw…

Hmm is this not the same argument that the classical AI gave with a few more rules and it will be alive!

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#177

Post by mehh »

yters wrote: post #174
JacksonGariety wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

It's alright, but I don't recall the book articulating actions computers cannot do. It seemed to still leave open the possibility that we can automate all human work. What we need is a precise task that humans can do with ease but we can prove is impossible for any computational device whatsoever.

Self awareness?

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#178

Post by mehh »

yters wrote: post #174
JacksonGariety wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

It's alright, but I don't recall the book articulating actions computers cannot do. It seemed to still leave open the possibility that we can automate all human work. What we need is a precise task that humans can do with ease but we can prove is impossible for any computational device whatsoever.

Self awareness?

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#179

Post by [deleted] »

yters wrote: post #174
JacksonGariety wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

It's alright, but I don't recall the book articulating actions computers cannot do. It seemed to still leave open the possibility that we can automate all human work. What we need is a precise task that humans can do with ease but we can prove is impossible for any computational device whatsoever.

[deleted]

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#180

Post by mehh »

zebrafish wrote: post #141
pgodzin wrote: post #126

> Not long ago, for example, while sitting with me in a cafe, my 3-year-old daughter spontaneously realized that she could climb out of her chair in a new way: backward, by sliding through the gap between the back and the seat of the chair. My daughter had never seen anyone else disembark in quite this way; she invented it on her own — and without the benefit of trial and error, or the need for terabytes of labeled d…

Yes terabytes.... Probably petabytes or more. And all of it is unlabeled data. If you fed video and sensory data to a deep net for 3 years and somehow were able to come up with an activation function that modeled "survival", I still highly doubt that anything at all would come out that remotely resembles human intelligence. There's no way that i'm aware of to label reality in real time.

Culture labels things, and we are trained with that.
Post reply on HN