What We Get Wrong About Technology • Hacker News Board

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#121

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 7:27 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #49

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What would probably really impress the hell out of them would be a supermarket, though." At the end of Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin's film Tout va bien there is a very long take, a panning shot that sweeps back and forth across a Carrefour hypermarket from just outside the cashiers, showing you the whole breadth of departments: fresh veg, canned goods, clothes, etc. I was amazed by this – the whole hypermar…

Sure these super/hypermarkets are a thing for long time now. I know them since I can think. What has changed in the consumer market is delivery. I mean I can buy a huge amount of stuff from all over the world via Amazon and get many thinks delivered at the next day for just 60€ a year prime costs. This is as insane as the hypermarkets were back in the 70s I think. And it gets better every year. With self driving truc…

Strangely, the delivery thing is a return to a previous model. Grocery boys used to deliver the shopping to the house. Then the supermarket killed that. Now we're returning to it.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#122

Post by gasbag » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #12

The article mentions "Jennifer", which is the real-world implementation of Marshall Brain's "Manna 1.0". Here's a video of it in action.[1] This is another example of "machines should think, people should work.". The computer is the boss. That may be the future. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC-ReBX0icU

It's probably worth mentioning that Manna represents the dystopian path of development. The second half of the story is devoted to The Australia Project, a technologically-advanced utopia where people are free to pursue their own interests and everyone is able to live a life of luxury.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#123

Post by naasking » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

dEnigma wrote: post #75

dEnigma wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deep L translation: "Das heißt: wenn zwischen Sprache A und Sprache B unbedingt etwas übersetzt werden muss, wird 2017 ein Zweisprachiger den Boden _absolut mit maschineller Übersetzung wischen." Not quite there yet, but pretty good in my opinion. (German native speaker) https://www.deepl.com/

Also, the other way around works even better in my opinion. That is, translation from German into English. I tried it with a few excerpts from a philosophy text book and the results were impressive. Your point that the AI doesn't "understand" the text still stands though.

> Your point that the AI doesn't "understand" the text still stands though

It should be noted that we don't know what "understanding" entails, so we don't even know if it's a coherent concept, or even a property humans have.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#124

Post by dEnigma » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #123

dEnigma wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the other way around works even better in my opinion. That is, translation from German into English. I tried it with a few excerpts from a philosophy text book and the results were impressive. Your point that the AI doesn't "understand" the text still stands though.

> Your point that the AI doesn't "understand" the text still stands though It should be noted that we don't know what "understanding" entails, so we don't even know if it's a coherent concept, or even a property humans have.

Right, that was one of the reasons why I put the word in quotes. But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it. I might be terribly wrong here though, and AI could be just one corner away from real understanding.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#125

Post by naasking » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

dEnigma wrote: post #124

naasking wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your point that the AI doesn't "understand" the text still stands though It should be noted that we don't know what "understanding" entails, so we don't even know if it's a coherent concept, or even a property humans have.

Right, that was one of the reasons why I put the word in quotes. But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it. I might be terribly wrong here though, and AI could be just one corner away from real understanding.

> But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it.

We have a bad habit of over-estimating our abilities, so I wouldn't bet too much money on that proposition.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#126

Post by huxley » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #47

donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

I think we over-emphasize elements that seem more “technological,” overestimate their importance. The printing press example is great. We credit the press because it’s mechanical and complex, but not the paper (or ink or literacy or religion). For peaches in winter, most people think of botany, refrigeration, airplanes… science. Fewer people would think of joint stock companies or shipping containers as important ena…

I found that the 1978 BBC documentary series "Connections" by James Burke really spoke to that as well as the interrelatedness of inventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#127

Post by dEnigma » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 10:15 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #125

dEnigma wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that was one of the reasons why I put the word in quotes. But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it. I might be terribly wrong here though, and AI could be just one corner away from real understanding.

> But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it. We have a bad habit of over-estimating our abilities, so I wouldn't bet too much money on that proposition.

Sure, but I'm not saying that human "understanding" is "better", only different from current AI. But who knows, I could be wrong and at a certain layer of abstraction they might be quite similar.