An understanding of AI’s limitations is starting to sink in

Post by amayne » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 7:31 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #38

unreal6 wrote: post #4

"The result is an artificial idiot savant that can excel at well-bounded tasks, but can get things very wrong if faced with unexpected input." I think this gets to the core of what is still a limitation of current technologies. Venturing into the unknown is still a deeply relevant task that seems unlikely to be replaced by computers anytime soon.

> can get things very wrong if faced with unexpected input Alice: Bob, Can you translate "Eat my shorts" into latin for me? Bob: No. I don't speak latin. Alice: Go on - try anyway. Bob: "Eatus mine shortus" Alice: Wrong! The answer is "Vescere bracis meis". You're totally wrong Bob! I was expecting more of you!

Post by memexy » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

0xBABAD00C wrote: post #202

Olreich wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If models actually were able to tell you what they know and don’t know, then sure. But instead they just give you an output for any input you give them, whether they have a clue or not.

This is such a simplistic view of a vast and evolving field of scientific research, it's too cartoonish of an argument to even warrant a real response. Which is why the conversation around ML gets negatively selected against actual researchers and practitioners, who get headaches from opinions like the one above.

Post by henearkr » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 7:59 AM UTC

ipiz0618 wrote: post #234

dreamcompiler wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether humans or AI are "better" drivers is completely beside the point. The point is that we can characterize human drivers. We know where they succeed and where they fail, both in a statistical sense and in an individual sense based on their age, attention, vision, chemical impairment, etc. But we cannot characterize ML networks. We take it on faith that they work and then we find (because somebody dies) that they…

I also agree on this. I think in terms of liability humans who one can sue when they make a mistake is more valuable than a machine. That's why in life critical applications companies who are capable of taking the risk are scarce, because when accidents happen, the company has to take responsibility. It cannot be resolved by just firing employees.

Post by jtjbdhsjjdnd » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 8:06 AM UTC

Judgmentality wrote: post #104

p1esk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things may have changed over the past 5 years or so. Things may have changed over the past 5 weeks or so with GPT-3.

Until GPT-3 can write something meaningful, it's really just a showcase of the technology and a gimmick of a product. Sure it's cool, but what problem is it solving? As far as I can tell the only useful function it has is polluting the internet with pseudo-intellectual comments to promote some agenda (likely political). So now that I think about it, it actually would be incredibly valuable for things like subverting…

Post by pwdisswordfish2 » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 8:13 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #222

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there examples in history where things requiring great time and effort were built then abandoned? In recent times, due to a relative dearth of high yield investment opportunities, there is a lot of money with nowhere to go. Some believe much of it is "dumb" money. Overfunded startups are one possible symptom. Heavily-funded "AI" may be another. This is before we even consider the moral and ethical issues of using…

> Are there examples in history where things requiring great time and effort were built then abandoned? The space program?