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

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#51

Post by amelius »

js8 wrote: post #21
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…

> Wondering if this article is written by GTP-3. FYI, it was written by a woman. I looked up her book, Kill It with Fire, and as a mainframer I have to say it seems pretty interesting. I think what she alludes to in this essay, though, is more like that AI cannot solve socioeconomic problems of humans. And even humans seem to struggle with it. Whenever I read stories where the metrics became the targets, and the like…

> I think what she alludes to in this essay, though, is more like that AI cannot solve socioeconomic problems of humans.

Yes, the question is: do we want AI to solve first world problems, or real problems?

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#52

Post by croes »

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.

So you are saying

Computer 1970: 0 situational awareness

Computer nowadays: 0 * infinity = undefined situational awareness.

Pretty useless.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#53

Post by digitcatphd »

OrderlyTiamat wrote: post #49

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.

Yep... didn't read past the headline of the article.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#54

Post by Retric »

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…

FYI. Humans are made of metal. Iron, Calcium, and Sodium are all essential metals.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#55

Post by plutonorm »

digitcatphd wrote: post #53
OrderlyTiamat wrote: post #49

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.

Yep... didn't read past the headline of the article.

I waded through half of it hoping a coherent point would emerge before heading over to hn comments to confirm my suspicions.It’s a mash up of a couple of different pop opinions on the state of ML without any real insight.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#56

Post by csmpltn »

gjm11 wrote: post #44
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

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 inte…

> "But (1) this seems obviously to be a really hard problem, and one that couldn't even have been attempted in 1970"

Apollo 11 landed on the moon July 20th 1969. You think that didn't take a degree of "AI" and "ML"? Or maybe we just had a different name for these things back then...

It's been 52 years since then.

We're simply focusing on the wrong problems.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#57

Post by ithkuil »

corford wrote: post #47
ithkuil wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

my point was just a crude attempt to dispel the myth that flesh has anything to do with efficiency at some task. What matters is design, and the immense research powers that nature has through eons of natural selection does an impressive job and doing things for which it has been "trained for" (hence your example).

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#58

Post by krallistic »

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

Its easy to point at the bookshelf example and say "Haha AI is stupid", but its actually quite impressive. One could easily argue that most human interviewers have similar bias, and that it can detect such complex signals (books, glasses etc) IS impressive.

The problem is this case is the data and/or wrong objectives, but the "AI" here has a lot of awareness, just on the "wrong" signals.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#59

Post by paulcole »

richk449 wrote: post #12
paulcole wrote: post #10

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? That’s how I see AI (particularly self driving tech) today. Yes, technically there’s been advancements but we don’t even know whether it’s possible to get to the finish line today.

> 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…

You missed the word “much”. Is a lead of one step a much better position? If it’s a 2 step race, then for sure. If it’s a 2000 step race, almost for sure not. If we’re not sure how long of a race it is, then who can say.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#60

Post by incrudible »

abpavel wrote: post #16

> On a warm day in 2008, Silicon Valley’s titans-in-the-making found themselves packed around a bulky, blond-wood conference room table. The author has read The New Yorker a lot. Some captivating details, made irrelevant at the end of the paragraph.

I can't imagine anyone actually reading these articles in 2021. I'm pretty sure most people buy the New Yorker to put it on the coffee table, because of the decorative covers.
Post reply on HN