The rise of 'pseudo-AI': how tech firms quietly use humans to do bots' work

Post by microtherion » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 1:21 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #91

randomsearch wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber

Uber, Airbnb, others get their "partners" to provide the working capital. This is a new take on the "value added reseller" business model. (I don't know what else to call it. Multi-level marketing?) For instance, Autodesk's dealer channel covered the costs of marketing, sales, technical support, training, etc. While they kept the sweet nectar of profits for themselves.

Post by srtjstjsj » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 7:49 AM UTC

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #104

adamdrake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not of the opinion that it is dangerous as an idea, but rather that the intentional deception I see on the AI topic is dangerous (not to mention unethical). I can't think of a single example of an "AI" company I talked with who did not know that they were explicitly exaggerating their claims and capabilities for the express purpose of attracting funding and fueling the hype fire. The solid tech startups I've seen…

Not to mention that AI as we define it does not actually exist yet. Anyone who uses that term is doing so dishonestly. Show me any intelligent code and I'll shut up. Until then I call BS on anything that's claims to be powered by AI.

Post by srtjstjsj » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 7:53 AM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #75

I think this article may be overstating a little. First, the prototyping/bootstrapping with humans is not a terrible idea. It takes a hurdle, and moves it down the line a bit. You still need to get over that hurdle. It's still a potential failure point, but it's not an irrational approach. There are a ton of businesses started on the basis of. 1. make free service 2. get 1bn customers 3. ??? 4. profit Twitter, Google…

Post by srtjstjsj » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 7:57 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #57

edanm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's totally valid to define AI this way. But just keep in mind, when most people talk about AI, they're knowingly talking of something much more limited. So you're going to constantly have communication failures with people who are defining AI differently than you. (Many people nowadays use the term AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] to mean what you think of as AI, btw).

Yeah I know about AGI but I dont like that term because it implies that the classifiers we have nowadays are good enough to be called "intelligence". They are just statistical models with great number of layers, nothing else.

Post by srtjstjsj » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 8:01 AM UTC

hyperrail wrote: post #3

Not quite on topic, but I can't help noticing the overused word "quietly" in the title of the story: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/tech-news-sites-quietly-rely-w... (This is a rare case where the word might be appropriate, though!)