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

The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#81

Post by TwoBit »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #69

The main problem with “AI revolution” today is that 95% of things that practitioners tell you it can do are just nowhere close to sufficient accuracy under the range of conditions they’d need to work in in the real world. Easily more than a half of them don’t even work at all outside a demo with hand picked examples. And nobody seems to care. This narrows down the scope of applicability to a tiny sliver where you can…

I have this idea that the only way to create true AI necessarily results in something that has feelings.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#82

Post by robotresearcher »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #69

The main problem with “AI revolution” today is that 95% of things that practitioners tell you it can do are just nowhere close to sufficient accuracy under the range of conditions they’d need to work in in the real world. Easily more than a half of them don’t even work at all outside a demo with hand picked examples. And nobody seems to care. This narrows down the scope of applicability to a tiny sliver where you can…

You seem to be ignoring the many, many AI applications that are already working with just fine accuracy in the real world. They are quietly working in the background where you don’t notice them.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#83

Post by throwaway84742 »

ergothus wrote: post #80
throwaway84742 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars (assuming you mean level 5 autonomous ones) are another one of those things which we won’t really be getting for at least 20 more years. 90% of the problem is solved, the remaining 10% are exponentially harder, so no one has a foggiest clue how to solve them, let alone solve economically enough to make the cars viable on the market.

I grew up hearing "we will eventually get computers that can play chess, but go is exponentially more complicated." People wee talking a century. I don't know that cars will happen soon(5-10 years), but I wouldn't want to bet one way or the other past that. We don't need perfection, we just need to equal humans, and humans are actually pretty bad, we are just used to it.

Humans are _amazing_ because they are able to correct the deficiencies of their perception with high level cognition augmented with memory of past experience. Machines can’t do cognition, and they can’t effectively use past experience either, to say nothing of doing a combination of those two things.

Current “AI” is basically function approximation and nothing else. And humans do everything they do in a 20W power envelope.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#84

Post by throwaway84742 »

TwoBit wrote: post #81
throwaway84742 wrote: post #69

The main problem with “AI revolution” today is that 95% of things that practitioners tell you it can do are just nowhere close to sufficient accuracy under the range of conditions they’d need to work in in the real world. Easily more than a half of them don’t even work at all outside a demo with hand picked examples. And nobody seems to care. This narrows down the scope of applicability to a tiny sliver where you can…

I have this idea that the only way to create true AI necessarily results in something that has feelings.

I’d settle for probabilistic, context aware cognition, myself. Sadly (or thankfully, depending on one’s perspective) this won’t happen in my lifetime.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#85

Post by visarga »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #47
return1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a trivial statement, unless he can suggest a different way to do things. Should people have held off building any bridges, until the 20th century arrived ? Building things and science have always evolved side-by-side in a feedback loop.

Actually it’s not a trivial statement. He’s saying that we don’t have enough theory guiding us and instead we just spin up a tensorflow library without having any clue what’s going on underneath the hood. And I don’t mean understanding linear algebra in neural networks, I mean we don’t have a good theory of computation for Artificial neural networks like we do for Boolean electronic circuits. There is a little bit of…

We already hit a wall - neural nets are easily hacked. The field is called Adversarial Attacks and Defences of Neural Nets. There's no perfect fix yet and it is a major security flaw.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#86

Post by mtgx »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #69

The main problem with “AI revolution” today is that 95% of things that practitioners tell you it can do are just nowhere close to sufficient accuracy under the range of conditions they’d need to work in in the real world. Easily more than a half of them don’t even work at all outside a demo with hand picked examples. And nobody seems to care. This narrows down the scope of applicability to a tiny sliver where you can…

All the more concerning that the Pentagon plans to have autonomous killing machines "ready" this year (hint: they won't actually be ready, but it's not like they'll tell us how many innocents they'll actually kill, especially with their very loose definitions of what a target is. They are yet to do that with the manual ones after all).

https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2018/04/16/drones-will-so...

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#87

Post by finebalance »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #83
ergothus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up hearing "we will eventually get computers that can play chess, but go is exponentially more complicated." People wee talking a century. I don't know that cars will happen soon(5-10 years), but I wouldn't want to bet one way or the other past that. We don't need perfection, we just need to equal humans, and humans are actually pretty bad, we are just used to it.

Humans are _amazing_ because they are able to correct the deficiencies of their perception with high level cognition augmented with memory of past experience. Machines can’t do cognition, and they can’t effectively use past experience either, to say nothing of doing a combination of those two things. Current “AI” is basically function approximation and nothing else. And humans do everything they do in a 20W power env…

"they can’t effectively use past experience either"

While I'm unsure whether the on board computer of your autonomous car will be able to leverage past experience, I thought it was a forgone conclusion that the telemetry from all the cars on the road will be used to iteratively improve the core model. Which would then be dispersed as an os upgrade, effectively teaching your individual unit from the past experience from all the units on the road so far.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#88

Post by euske »

robotresearcher wrote: post #82
throwaway84742 wrote: post #69

The main problem with “AI revolution” today is that 95% of things that practitioners tell you it can do are just nowhere close to sufficient accuracy under the range of conditions they’d need to work in in the real world. Easily more than a half of them don’t even work at all outside a demo with hand picked examples. And nobody seems to care. This narrows down the scope of applicability to a tiny sliver where you can…

You seem to be ignoring the many, many AI applications that are already working with just fine accuracy in the real world. They are quietly working in the background where you don’t notice them.

Such as...?

Please don't go BS like "Google is an AI app" etc. I'd expect an app where AI is the indispensable component. You can make a decent search engine/camera/phone/car/microwave without AI.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#89

Post by rdlecler1 »

graycat wrote: post #79
rdlecler1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it’s not a trivial statement. He’s saying that we don’t have enough theory guiding us and instead we just spin up a tensorflow library without having any clue what’s going on underneath the hood. And I don’t mean understanding linear algebra in neural networks, I mean we don’t have a good theory of computation for Artificial neural networks like we do for Boolean electronic circuits. There is a little bit of…

> We should be reverse engineering intelligence and comparing that to AI so that we can build up the theoretical equivalent of aerodynamics. Well, with a lot of assumptions, if believe they hold in practice, we have a lot of powerful theory for regression analysis, and we didn't get that theory by "reverse engineering intelligence". We got hypothesis tests, confidence intervals, prediction intervals, etc. So, more ge…

I see this as the MIT school of though. This group was saying that we’d have strong AI back in the 60s. I believe that a brute force math approach that lacks a larger theory of how neural networks give us intelligence is going to be the slow path forward.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#90

Post by rdlecler1 »

visarga wrote: post #85
rdlecler1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it’s not a trivial statement. He’s saying that we don’t have enough theory guiding us and instead we just spin up a tensorflow library without having any clue what’s going on underneath the hood. And I don’t mean understanding linear algebra in neural networks, I mean we don’t have a good theory of computation for Artificial neural networks like we do for Boolean electronic circuits. There is a little bit of…

We already hit a wall - neural nets are easily hacked. The field is called Adversarial Attacks and Defences of Neural Nets. There's no perfect fix yet and it is a major security flaw.

You’re example doesn’t prove they hit a wall, only that they’re fallible. Humans ‘get hacked’ every day. I wouldn’t exactly say human intelligence has hit a wall because of it, rather that human intelligence may have weaknesses and can be exploited. Frankly I wouldn’t expect neural networks to be any different.
Post reply on HN