101–109 of 109 posts
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
1960s USA had a less superficial political culture, so was more willing to tolerate PR-sensitive risks in pursuing major technological achievements, and it could allocate a much larger proportion of GDP to the Apollo program, as government directed social welfare spending consumed a far smaller share of GDP: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move? Not quite. You'd need to look into how people play chess. It has vastly more to do with present positioning and making high-quality evaluations of present board configuration. > rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums Indeed. And what is a system which merel…
> Not quite. You'd need to look into how people play chess. It has vastly more to do with present positioning and making high-quality evaluations of present board configuration. That is what Alpha Zero does when you remove tree search > A NN is just a system for remembering a dataset and interpolating a line between its points. Interpolating a line between points == making inferences on new situations based on past e…
The goal is either business process automation (do the same thing with less people) or to enable processing at a scale where doing it manually is impractical. For example, nobody would assert that an automated email spam filtering system is going to better than a human filtering my email, but an automated filter is quite useful since most of us can't afford a personal secretary. The bar for "good enough to be useful" often is lower than "human equivalent".
It is interesting that the author assumes that the intent of industrial applied AI is to make better decisions - from my experience, in the vast majority of cases companies are applying various techniques (both AI/ML and hard-coded heuristics) with the explicit intent to get cheaper decisions, knowing very well that they aren't going to be as good as a dedicated, caring human could make them. The goal is either busin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The objective was to build an intelligent machine. Games were chosen as they, in humans, require intelligence. They thought that AI would come out of building systems that can replace humans: sure, but only insofar as you preserve the use of intelligence. If you replace with a shortcut, you havent built an intelligent machine.
The objective was to make a machine that could beat anybody at chess. Nobody on the Alpha Zero team believes Alpha Zero is an example of general AI. Teaching a system to understand a complex system is a necessary subcomponent of general intelligence.
This is my point. Weak AI is not a component of general AI. A chess game futhers the project zero amount.
General intelligence is a way of being embedded in an environment; is the mechanism of furnishing narrow intelligence with content.
It is not a formal challenge, it's at best an engineering one. And a bioengineering one, in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We are talking about self driving AI as a system - inputs and outputs and it's relative complexity. I mapped that system complexity to single cell motility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems inevitable to me the moment AI capacity seriously surpasses human (as a whole) capacity in any specific topic, it becomes an oracle. I hear of efforts to translate machine decision making to human understandable terms, but if it is a question of raw intelligence, it will quickly become impossible to understand.
It's interesting to see how super advanced ML-based engines have changed the field of chess in recent years - top engines are way better than top humans, so, in a sense, act as oracles. Top players routinely use them in preparation, to study new lines, get hints about what moves make sense in a position and also to generate new ideas or tweak the principles they apply in the game. The engines don't explain their reas…
But when it comes to raw intellectual superiority, say, explain the logic behind new mathematical or physical concepts and discoveries, very high level predictions, we come to our human limit and cannot surpass it.
The AI can give us implants to improve our intelligence, but only to a certain limited degree, our biological brain will slow us down significantly.
That is the barrier we cannot possibly cross in a timespan of human life.