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

AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#41

Post by SCNP »

bdamm wrote: post #32
paul7986 wrote: post #7

If true then robot cars are scarier then I've thought ... AI is going to be able to process the right scenario to avoid a deadly crash within the first decade or more of market adoption or the programmers are going to learn and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed? *I'm always downvoted for this thought but is this not the true way forward with robot cars? Those who downvote me think the first batch…

It's a legitimate question but the mechanism of how it works is completely wrong. Many people will be killed by any given mass market implementation of self driving cars. Those people will be killed by crashes that a human could not have avoided, people will be killed by errors few humans would make (e.g. "plowing into an overturned truck at full speed") and people will NOT be killed by facets of the system that huma…

Far in the future, we will also see the effects of having full or near-full adoption of self-driving. If all the cars on the road are driven by the "same" or at least similar driver, the edge-cases will drop off significantly.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#42

Post by PartiallyTyped »

suchow wrote: post #10
leesec wrote: post #4

There is nothing special about human intelligence. We will have smarter computers in our life time and I'm willing to place bets.

The word "smarter" masks some of the complexity here. If you define it as "higher performance on a task widely considered to require intelligence", then we've had computers that are smarter than humans for at least decades. If you define it as "higher performance on every task widely considered to require intelligence", then I'll take that bet, please.

We have beat humans on every single atari game by at least one order of magnitude, and we do that consistently, and it really only took 5 or so years since the first solution that provided tangible results. It has only been 8 or 9 years since GPGPUs were used for ML research.

We are also seeing models that are able to generate code given prompts.

Given enough representational power, I don't see why a model that learns to solve games can't figure out how to generate good enough subroutines for itself.

So I am taking the other side of this bet.

We will see ML models surpass Humans in every task in 30 or so years.

I will find you and buy you dinner in October of 2051.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#43

Post by jrm4 »

paul7986 wrote: post #7

If true then robot cars are scarier then I've thought ... AI is going to be able to process the right scenario to avoid a deadly crash within the first decade or more of market adoption or the programmers are going to learn and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed? *I'm always downvoted for this thought but is this not the true way forward with robot cars? Those who downvote me think the first batch…

I'm always thinking the thing we have to keep in the back of our heads -- "cars" as humans have done them are stupid. Very very stupid. You go to LA and you see all the people going to places, each in separate cars, when trains and subways were invented a long time ago, and it becomes clear.

So, sure, you have an interesting technical question of "robots being able to drive like people," but let's not take any of this too seriously if we're comparing to a concept of "intelligence." The collective stupid is far too overwhelming.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#44

Post by comeonseriously »

paul7986 wrote: post #7

If true then robot cars are scarier then I've thought ... AI is going to be able to process the right scenario to avoid a deadly crash within the first decade or more of market adoption or the programmers are going to learn and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed? *I'm always downvoted for this thought but is this not the true way forward with robot cars? Those who downvote me think the first batch…

> and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed

My question is always, who is responsible for those deaths? Or will we just have so little care for life that we consider them "for the cause"?

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#45

Post by glenstein »

yk wrote: post #39

There's an entire genre of articles which argue that computers can never do X, because X is ill defined. Thing is, half of the time X is only ill defined because the writer neglects to define X well, and for the other half, that the writer can't define X well is no proof that it is impossible to define X well. Here however, if the take the argument of representations in a technical sense, then since a neural network…

Completely agree. The history of this dates back to philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, who, observing the halting progress of text recognition research at the time, and made open ended declarations that computers can't do X. He said computers couldn't compete at human levels in chess because chess required "insight." This claim did not age well.

I find these to be confused, hodgepodgey, not clearly centered on any coherent argument, and often just plain shallow and wrong while masquerading as deep insights. I am glad that, at least, the recent advances in AI are repudiating this genre, or at least forcing articles to add new caveats as to why recent advances don't count.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#47

Post by Cipater »

taneq wrote: post #35
sdenton4 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess and Go were beaten, and the AI goalpost had to move /somewhere/...

Some day we may reach the point where we realise humans don’t qualify as AI either.

The "A" in AI stands for "artificial". Intelligence demonstrated by machines.

Human intelligence is natural intelligence.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#48

Post by paul7986 »

comeonseriously wrote: post #44
paul7986 wrote: post #7

If true then robot cars are scarier then I've thought ... AI is going to be able to process the right scenario to avoid a deadly crash within the first decade or more of market adoption or the programmers are going to learn and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed? *I'm always downvoted for this thought but is this not the true way forward with robot cars? Those who downvote me think the first batch…

> and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed My question is always, who is responsible for those deaths? Or will we just have so little care for life that we consider them "for the cause"?

That's my sentiment on this .... progress will be a killer in this realm of software development and on a large scale. Developers who get into robot cars the deaths their AI makes doesn't or won't bother them? Just analyze the data, learn and ship the fix who cares about johnny, susie and their kid killed by their AI's mistake in which they weren't even driving a robot car just driving alongside one like Uber's pedestrian killer robot car.

Right now the vast majority of developers code we are shipping is just fixing bugs in business and consumer applications where loss of life is almost nil in what we fix and ship.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#49

Post by mikepurvis »

comeonseriously wrote: post #44
paul7986 wrote: post #7

If true then robot cars are scarier then I've thought ... AI is going to be able to process the right scenario to avoid a deadly crash within the first decade or more of market adoption or the programmers are going to learn and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed? *I'm always downvoted for this thought but is this not the true way forward with robot cars? Those who downvote me think the first batch…

> and ship bug fixes for each person their prior code killed My question is always, who is responsible for those deaths? Or will we just have so little care for life that we consider them "for the cause"?

A valid question, and one that deserves an answer.

However, also valid to note that 38k+ people die on US roads each yeah, and as I understand it, most of those are chalked up to being freak, unpreventable "accidents". So maybe there's a step here even ahead of autonomous vehicles where we commit to abandoning this way of thinking and insist that every road death is fully root-caused. Not just back to human error, but in the FAA sense, back to why equipment, processes, and infrastructure were in place that allowed a single moment of human inattention to be so deadly.

Re: AI Is No Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence

#50

Post by omegalulw »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #42
suchow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "smarter" masks some of the complexity here. If you define it as "higher performance on a task widely considered to require intelligence", then we've had computers that are smarter than humans for at least decades. If you define it as "higher performance on every task widely considered to require intelligence", then I'll take that bet, please.

We have beat humans on every single atari game by at least one order of magnitude, and we do that consistently, and it really only took 5 or so years since the first solution that provided tangible results. It has only been 8 or 9 years since GPGPUs were used for ML research. We are also seeing models that are able to generate code given prompts. Given enough representational power, I don't see why a model that learn…

> We have beat humans on every single atari game by at least one order of magnitude

There's mechanical skill involved, it's not purely intelligence.

> We are also seeing models that are able to generate code given prompts.

This has been discussed a lot, but the generated code is nowhere close to good enough for large projects where you really need intelligence.

> Given enough representational power, I don't see why a...

Except that it's not linear scaling. The larger NLP models consume absurdly large resources, it's not straightforward to "get enough representational power"

Also, most models fail to adapt to new tasks outside of their narrow training scope, that's a massive problem. Even if you make models large, you will find that getting data covering all edge cases is exponentially expensive.

Post reply on HN