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

A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#31

Post by Barrin92 »

richk449 wrote: post #4

> After decades of investment, oversight, and standards development, we are not closer to total situational awareness through a computerized brain than we were in the 1970s. Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970. The article makes the usual complaints about self driving cars: > Despite $16 billion in investment…

>Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970.

You sure about that?

https://twitter.com/hatr/status/1361756449802768387?s=20

>Waymo runs self driving cars today in very specific locations

Ernst Dickmann had autonomous cars on the road in very specific locations in the 1980s

https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#32

Post by dtech »

Barrin92 wrote: post #31
richk449 wrote: post #4

> After decades of investment, oversight, and standards development, we are not closer to total situational awareness through a computerized brain than we were in the 1970s. Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970. The article makes the usual complaints about self driving cars: > Despite $16 billion in investment…

> Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970. You sure about that? https://twitter.com/hatr/status/1361756449802768387?s=20 > Waymo runs self driving cars today in very specific locations Ernst Dickmann had autonomous cars on the road in very specific locations in the 1980s https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE

I don't see how this is relevant. Computers in the 1970 had no situational awareness about people interviewing for jobs. So yes, that software might be crap, it still has infinitely more awareness.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#33

Post by dtech »

vagrantJin wrote: post #25
Scarblac wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intelligence" is anything that humans can do but we don't know how to make computers do. Once computers can do it, it's "mere computation".

I doubt we'd call locomotion and reaction to sensory feedback intelligent. Even single cell organisms are well and truly capable of that.

What self-driving cars do is closer to something an animal like a deer does, not something a bacterium does. And you'd generally say a deer uses some intelligence while moving.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#34

Post by Scarblac »

vagrantJin wrote: post #25
Scarblac wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intelligence" is anything that humans can do but we don't know how to make computers do. Once computers can do it, it's "mere computation".

I doubt we'd call locomotion and reaction to sensory feedback intelligent. Even single cell organisms are well and truly capable of that.

So can single cell organisms drive cars? Because otherwise I don't see your point.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#35

Post by Barrin92 »

dtech wrote: post #32
Barrin92 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970. You sure about that? https://twitter.com/hatr/status/1361756449802768387?s=20 > Waymo runs self driving cars today in very specific locations Ernst Dickmann had autonomous cars on the road in very specific locations in the 1980s https://youtu.be/_HbVWm7wdmE

I don't see how this is relevant. Computers in the 1970 had no situational awareness about people interviewing for jobs. So yes, that software might be crap, it still has infinitely more awareness.

what even is "infinitely more awareness?" is that an actual metric? Computers today have exactly as much awareness as they had in the 1970s, situational or otherwise, which is none. The algorithm in question does not know what a bookshelf is, does not know what a job interview is and it does not know how the two relate. It correlates a bunch of pixels and creates the illusion of having awareness, but this is an anthropomorphization and nothing more.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#36

Post by 317070 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #35
dtech wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is relevant. Computers in the 1970 had no situational awareness about people interviewing for jobs. So yes, that software might be crap, it still has infinitely more awareness.

what even is "infinitely more awareness?" is that an actual metric? Computers today have exactly as much awareness as they had in the 1970s, situational or otherwise, which is none. The algorithm in question does not know what a bookshelf is, does not know what a job interview is and it does not know how the two relate. It correlates a bunch of pixels and creates the illusion of having awareness, but this is an anthr…

How do you know it is nothing more? Why wouldn't awareness emerge from a large amount of correlation?

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#37

Post by Jabbles »

mjburgess wrote: post #23
richk449 wrote: post #4

> After decades of investment, oversight, and standards development, we are not closer to total situational awareness through a computerized brain than we were in the 1970s. Hard to see how that could be true. In just about any field, computers today provide much better situational awareness than was possible in 1970. The article makes the usual complaints about self driving cars: > Despite $16 billion in investment…

> Yet cars are much more intelligent today than they were in the 1970s Therein lies the problem. Your definition of intelligence presumes that it is a simple quantitative scale, measuring I guess, something like "system complexity". The relevant sense here, in which no progress has been made, is qualitative -- ie., it is a distinct property. And this property has not been acquired. What is the property? It is dynamic…

Are you suggesting that there is a binary property "intelligent or not"? In which case, what would progress even look like?

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#39

Post by bserge »

Animats wrote: post #26
MattGaiser wrote: post #13

>People don’t make better decisions when given more data, so why do we assume A.I. will? How much of this is just because it says something they do not want to hear or because there are incentives to not consider it?

People don’t make better decisions when given more data, so why do we assume A.I. will? It's recognized that many machine learning systems today need very large amounts of training data, far more than humans facing the same task. That's a property of the current brute-force approaches, where you often go from no prior knowledge to some specific classification in one step. This often works better than previous approac…

Every single adult person has a 20+ year learning lead on any machine, so it's a bit unfair to say humans can do the same task with less data.

And computers are already better at tasks involving a lot of math, which is the main reasons they've become commonplace.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#40

Post by mjburgess »

Jabbles wrote: post #37
mjburgess wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet cars are much more intelligent today than they were in the 1970s Therein lies the problem. Your definition of intelligence presumes that it is a simple quantitative scale, measuring I guess, something like "system complexity". The relevant sense here, in which no progress has been made, is qualitative -- ie., it is a distinct property. And this property has not been acquired. What is the property? It is dynamic…

Are you suggesting that there is a binary property "intelligent or not"? In which case, what would progress even look like?

Indeed, a bit like, "made of metal, or not".

And I think it looks more or less like, "organic-in-relevant-way or not".

"Relevant" here means a type of organic-physiological adaptability which is able to operate on incredibly short time scales: ie., you're able to physically adapt your body as your environment changes at the second, minute, hour, day, ... decade, timescales.

Typing is a type of organic adaption which takes years to complete. As are essentially all of our skills.

With digital machines and robots we're maybe able to emulate our cognitive processes as they consider our body-environment relationship. But we have not emulated, at all, our ability to have this type of body-environment relationship.

Post reply on HN