151–160 of 518 posts
We call it deep learning, but it is deep pattern matching. Extremely useful, but don't expect it to result in thinking machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post has two different points, and I think they should be separated. Yes, there's an AI hype train, and it's pretty tiring. I'm starting to wonder when the first AI-enhanced shoes are going to come out. Or an AI enhanced blockchain, right? That said, the rest of the rant about AI is less solid. Sure, AI today is fairly boring and run of the mill data processing / optimisation stuff (I sort of know, though I only…
I never claimed AI was boring or run of the mill, just that it's not in my current interest. It's when I hear Hawking make claims like this, I call ignorance. "Computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence, and exceed it,' he said. 'Success in creating effective AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization. Or the worst. We just don't know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, author here: Well first off: letters to investors are among the most biased pieces of writing in existence. Second: I'm not saying connectionism did not succeed in many areas! I'm a connectionist by heart! I love connectionism! But that being said there is disconnect between the expectations and reality. And it is huge. And it is particularly visible in autonomous driving. And it is not limited to media or CEO's,…
How can something be biased when it's listing facts? Those are actual features that are available today to anyone, that were made possible by AI. Do you think it would be possible to type "pictures of me at the beach with my dog" without AI in such as short time frame? Or to have cars that drive themselves without a driver? These are concrete benefits of machine learning, I don't understand how that's biased.
>translate over 100 languages in Google Translate;
>caption over a billion videos in 10 languages on YouTube;
barely even work. Yeah, it's a difficult problem but it's not even close to being solved.
I'm sorry but it feels really good to be true about many things like Blockchain and AI/ML hype, get ostracized for having such opinions by communities like HN and Reddit, wait few years and then find out that they have all jumped ships when you didn't check. You first-worlders need to stop blowing smoke up your asses and wind down a little bit. Next "big" thing to be killed by reality: Quantum computers (another BS m…
The difference between Blockchain advocates and the thieves from the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" is that the weavers from the tale knew they were bullshitting the king. Sadly blockchains will not revolutionize mankind.
Warning 23 year old CS grad angst ridden post: I'm very sick of the AI hype train. I took a PR class for my last year of college, and they couldn't help but mention it. LG Smart TV ads mention it, Microsoft commercials, my 60 year old tech illiterate Dad. Do any end users really know what it's about? Probably not, nor should that matter, but it's very triggering to see something that was once a big part of CS turned…
It's pretty clear to everyone pushing this is being dishonest. Sometimes I wonder if they intentionally being dishonest or if they just don't know what they don't know. Very few people are doing useful true machine learning, and the applications are very specific with its own set of quirks. It's just to make some quick money and get out.
What somehow is never being said with all this hype is that you need to hire good software devs to make a great solution to a problem. All these buzzword driven ideas tend to confuse a bunch of people and die out after wasting everyone's money. In my region I keep seeing a bunch of business suits pushing X idea being solved with Y with no justification or engineers behind them.
Yesterday I have found out I have to have yet another meeting to explain why "blockchain" does not translate to a full solution given to a very superficial poorly thought out problem.
The only reason I've had a voice in my region with all this noise is because I've made things people see that actually work.
The brain does not model the world. It learns to see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure the same could be said for early computer graphics before the GPU race. You don't need Moore's Law to make machine learning fast, you can also do it with hardware tailored to the task. Look at Google's TPUs for an example of this. If you want an idea of where machine learning is in the scheme of things, the best thing to do is listen to the experts. _None_ of them have promised wild general intelligence any…
> Funding for this basic science isn't going away. What make this 3rd/4th boom in AI different? The other AI winter, the funding for these science went from well funded to little funding. I'm skeptical, with respect of course, on your statement because it doesn't have anything to back that up other than it produce useful technologies. Wouldn't this statement imply that the other previous AI which experience AI Winter…
The current difference is that the technologies are actually useful right now. It's not about promised or expected technologies of tomorrow, but about what we have already researched, about known capabilities that need implementation, adoption, and lots of development work to apply it in lots and lots of particular use cases. If the core research hits a dead end tomorrow and stops producing any meaningful progress for the next 10 or 20 years, the obvious applications of neural-networks-as-we're-teaching-them-in-2018 work sufficiently well and are useful enough to deploy them in all kinds of industrial applications, and the demand is sufficient to employ every current ML practitioner and student even in absence of basic research funding, so a slump is not plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hi, it appears that "sensationalist garbage" triggered quite a bit of a discussion. Yes. Sensationalist. > I also omitted Cruise automation and a bunch of other companies, perhaps because they have more responsible backup drivers that so far avoided fatal crashes. So your explicit reason for omitting Waymo, as I understand it, is that it didn't support your argument?
> Yes. Sensationalist. Yes, perhaps. But I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. And time will tell who was right. > So your explicit reason for omitting Waymo, as I understand it, is that it didn't support your argument? You see, when you make any argument, you always omit the infinite number of things that don't support it and focus on the few things that do. The fact that something does not s…
No. When I make an argument, I try to omit the infinite number of things I think are unlikely to be important, and focus on the few things that I think are most important whether they support my position or not.
Everyone's fallible, and I do my share of focusing too much on points that support my position over more important counter points, but I see that as a failing, not as the reasonable thing to do.