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

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#41

Post by ithkuil »

mjburgess wrote: post #40
Jabbles wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A dog is not.made of metal but I have yet to see a dog that drives better than a waymo self-driving car.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#42

Post by martin_a »

icoder wrote: post #17
richk449 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s say you and I were going to race each other by walking. You start on the east side of Los Angeles and I’m in Santa Monica. Does your lead mean you’re in a much better position than me? What if the finish line is in Amsterdam? I can't figure out how to parse this. You refer to my starting location as a "lead", but they ask if it means I am in a better position - that is the definition of "lead". I think your p…

It's an improvement in what it does now, but I think the point is it is not necessarily bringing the end goal closer. Like a side track that runs dead at some point. No matter how much faster horses may have had become by selective breeding, that did not bring 100km/h travel closer.

With regards to autonomous driving, improvements like this absolutely bring us closer to the end goal.

Each improvement in adaptive cruise controls, lane following/holding assistants and any other partly-autonomous assistance system does its part in acquiring experience and technology for "the end goal".

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#43

Post by rcxdude »

fungiblecog wrote: post #19
solipsism wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your personal, idiosyncratic definition of "intelligent".

In the sense that an intelligent thing can react sensibly to situations outside of those explicitly known about in advance

Waymo has some excellent examples of their car reacting to strange unforseen situations appropriately. You're going to need to be more specific.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#44

Post by gjm11 »

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

How much would you bet that human interviewers' opinions of a candidate after a video interview wouldn't be affected if they were visibly in a room full of books? Or if they wore glasses, or had a painting hanging on the wall, or the various other things the researchers found made a difference to the AI's assessment?

To be clear, I am super-skeptical about the ability of AI systems to do a good job of judging an interviewee's personality from a short video clip. But (1) this seems obviously to be a really hard problem, and one that couldn't even have been attempted in 1970, and (2) I am also pretty skeptical about the ability of human interviewers to do it.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#47

Post by corford »

ithkuil wrote: post #41
mjburgess wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A dog is not.made of metal but I have yet to see a dog that drives better than a waymo self-driving car.

A waymo self-driving car is not made of flesh and bones but I have yet to see a waymo self-driving car that performs better than a dog at: rescuing humans, detecting cancers and disease, shepherding and playing with other animals, protecting family from threats...

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#48

Post by mjburgess »

ithkuil wrote: post #41
mjburgess wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A dog is not.made of metal but I have yet to see a dog that drives better than a waymo self-driving car.

A dog's environment isn't roads. And no car has been design for a dog to drive.

Were such a car to exist, it is clear the dog would win in very very many environments (almost all). As would a mouse, let alone a dog.

That it may be possible to rig a human environment to be replete with so many symbols (road signs, etc.) that an incredibly dumb automated system can follow them is hardly here-nor-there.

Personally, I dont even think that will be possible. Self-driving cars may work on highways and motorways; I don't see there being any in cities. Not for centuries.

(Absent pretty big engineering projects to make cities so overly sign'd that a non-intelligent automated system could navigate them. Consider, eg., existing automated trains & train networks.)

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#49

Post by OrderlyTiamat »

This author makes broad sweeping claims, supprting them with numerous references that (in all instances that I checked) actually counter their argument. I'm not even sure the author knows _what subject they want to talk about_, never mind what argument to present.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#50

Post by rightbyte »

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

That project has way to little coverage. It is like the 70s automatic hamburger joint.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXLqImT1wE

I recall some Ford(?) project which guided the cars by rail that was quite old.

Post reply on HN