Live data from Hacker News

We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

calpaterson.com

321–330 of 427 posts

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#321

The following quotes are fairly interesting and ironic: > Larry Page and Sergey Brin were originally pretty negative about search engines that sold ads. Appendix A in their original paper says: >> "we expect that advertising-funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers" > and that >> "we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives…

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~page/google7.html

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~page/google4.html

"Currently most search engine development has gone on at companies with little publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented (see Section ?). With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm."

They never delivered on this "strong goal" to make web search an academic endeavour.

They managed to domainate web search but the endeavour is now 100% commercial. It is intentionally nontransparent (due to commercial incentives) and remains a "black art". Don't try this at home.

"Also, it is interesting to note that metadata efforts have largely failed with web search engines, because any text on the page which is not directly represented to the user is abused to "spam" search engines. There are even numerous companies which specialize in manipulating search engines for profit."

"Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives

Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine the top result for cellular phone is "The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention", a study which explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page, 98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's home page when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#322
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The minute 'AI' solves a problem the problem is removed from that class of problems that require 'AI'. If the problem is difficult enough we might award the new solution its own name.

“Moving the goalposts” has long been identified as a problem by AI enthusiasts, but the opposite is also often true—an AI is built to solve a limited or highly restricted form of a problem, and then proponents claim that the goalpost has been moved when it’s observed that the general problem remains unsolved. It feels to me that we started calling ML “AI” when deep learning became powerful enough to work on less clea…

I'm starting to appreciate this sentiment. The way most ML success stories are presented, you'd think it really is all a case of finding enough data, and let the computer learn to extract something useful from it.

That is not the hard part.

The hard part, is finding a dataset that is amenable to the training process. Or at the very least, determining if a collection has any 'educational' value at all.

Then, by the time you get to that point, you're probably already looking at metadata, or a simple pattern that could possibly be encoded in a database query.

I have some faith in some of these new discoveries (Alphafold is a remarkable case study), but in many cases, the effectiveness of ML seems to be overstated.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#323
post #251

The misunderstanding that leads to belief in strong AI is that meaning is somehow embedded in the symbols used to communicate it. Meaning is a natural process that occurs inside each of us, speech is just a symbol of that meaning, text is a symbol of that speech. Further, meaning is an ever-evolving, ever-mutating process much like the universe. Training on symbols cannot arrive at meaning, since the meaning isn’t co…

...what? How is this different than saying you can't learn from reading a book because its just symbols.

The best I can decipher is that your argument begs the question, ie you're saying machine learning can't derive meaning from symbols because machine learning doesn't derive meaning from symbols.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#324
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't this also the story of a dating site (whose name escapes me. OKCupid? PoF?)? Original owner wrote an article about how paying for a dating site is a bad idea. Money is offered, article disappears. Searching is failing me at the moment edit: Was OKCupid: https://www.themarysue.com/okcupid-pulls-why-you-should-neve...

From the article > 12-moth plan > 6-month plan Why would a dating site have a 12-month plan, and why would a user of a dating site want a 12-month plan? Not only would you hopefully want to be off the site within 12 months, as soon as you found someone compatible, you would hopefully delete the app, but you've unnecessarily paid for months you will (hopefully) never use. I don't understand why anything but month-to-m…

Some users just wanting a string of hookups, perhaps?

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#325
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of dating sites at least in Scandinavia/central europe, where men pay per message (or usually buy message packs, it ends up being around 1€ a message IIRC). The (mostly) men answering these messages, pretending to be women, get paid around 0.15€ per reply. And obviously writing messages where they try to prolong the conversation and turn down real life meetings or changing to other (free) messaging sy…

Why does the system charge men and pay women to message, instead of just charging everyone to message? I would have thought that of all places Scandinavia would not price-discriminate users based on their gender ...

Even Scandinavia is not immune to gender disparities in online dating

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's not the problem we were talking about, is it? We were talking about the issue of bribery, which is made possible by the fungible nature of money.

Yes it is, namely this is the GP > Money is the one unpatchable zero-day for every platform and service on earth. To which the response was that Karl Marx had submitted a fix

Yes, and? I think you missed a few steps. Someone then answered that bribery is still possible, and I answered again.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is going to sell you forex or gold for non-transferable tokens?

Non-transferable tokens aren’t going to be a successful replacement for money

In a capitalist economy certainly not.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying or excusing that historical atrocities occurred under socialist governments , but for perspective one should also look at the myriad atrocities that were and continue to be committed under capitalist governments. That doesn't excuse such actions, but neither side is innocent. I suggest reading The Wretched of the Earth* Chapter 1, "On Violence". Here are a few examples off the top of my head: https://…

The issue is that these atrocities were committed more specifically as a result of communism, whereas other attrocities are less closely attributable to capitalism since it has been the majority default throughout history. EDIT:. I'm not saying what's normal is ok, I'm saying what's common is more likely to falsely correlate with anything. Whereas as the common factor for communism across the board has been a high st…

I'm not really interested in having this argument anymore, but I'll leave you with this:

Just because something is the "default" option doesn't mean it is non-ideological. Ideology is a powerful tool for shaping people's actions. People will go along with insane and sometimes horrifying things just because they perceive them as "normal". Maybe expose yourself to some alternative ideology. You don't have to agree with it to learn something.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying or excusing that historical atrocities occurred under socialist governments , but for perspective one should also look at the myriad atrocities that were and continue to be committed under capitalist governments. That doesn't excuse such actions, but neither side is innocent. I suggest reading The Wretched of the Earth* Chapter 1, "On Violence". Here are a few examples off the top of my head: https://…

The issue is that these atrocities were committed more specifically as a result of communism, whereas other attrocities are less closely attributable to capitalism since it has been the majority default throughout history. EDIT:. I'm not saying what's normal is ok, I'm saying what's common is more likely to falsely correlate with anything. Whereas as the common factor for communism across the board has been a high st…

That's ahistorical considering almost all deaths attributed to communism were a result of industrialization, a process which was just as deadly under capitalism.

The only difference as a result of ideology was the timeframe. The USSR was forced to rapidly industrialize due to global pressure from foreign militaries and famines in China were exceedingly common long before communism.

History is not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#330
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main problem with advertising and the technologies surround it, aside from the obvious privacy issues and their misuse, is that it seems to suck all the air out of the room. The birth and dominance of the online advertising business model looks to be the greatest misallocation of engineering talent in the history of humanity.

This is a bit how I feel about advertising in general. Human beings' time is being taken and mouths are being fed not to increase overall output, and thus lifting the overall well being of members of society. Instead, Company A hires advertisers to convince the public to buy their product instead of a competing product to Company B. Value is created for Company A, but entirely at the expense of Company B. At no time…

but the advertising industry has almost alone managed to produce google. That's a trillion dollar company that has literally changed the world.

Some perspective is needed. What looks like an evil industry of insane waste is at the end of the day subsidising our most important tools for business, communicating, and relaxing. All thanks to the vast allocations of resources and money into advertising.

Post reply on HN