31–40 of 129 posts
Personally I can't wait to be made obsolete by the god AI.
The limit to human creativity would move from a technical one to your imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further support your point, AI is 90% efficient/good at driving. But the last 10% is so hard that some think it's impossible to have 100% self-driving cars.
Self-checkout at supermarkets does 90% of the work. The 10% of work remaining is done by a human supervising the self-checkout stations. And same will happen to development. Lots of tasks will be automated and less people will be needed as a result.
What is intelligence? Can classical machines become intelligent, or is there some mystical quantum quality involved? Is there a limit to intelligence? What is the best form of intelligence (single entity vs society), Is intelligence even understandable, and therefore engineerable? Are current neural networks in any way intelligent (they seem extremely good at pattern matching, and/or regurgitating those patterns, but beyond that I'm not sure). Etc, etc, etc, etc.
The discussion about AI always focuses on replacing the leaves of the trees in corporate heirarchies, but the value obtained by replacing the root seems to be much higher.
One could also plausible replace shareholders with AI, although then one might start to question the whole structure of investment capitalism... maybe AI would be better at making long-term decisions about the distribution of capital to prospective business operations than some group of Wall Street funds are?
Perhaps we'll see AI-managed pension funds in the near future with significantly better results (and more interest in the long-term health of the outfits they invest in) soon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further support your point, AI is 90% efficient/good at driving. But the last 10% is so hard that some think it's impossible to have 100% self-driving cars.
Self-checkout at supermarkets does 90% of the work. The 10% of work remaining is done by a human supervising the self-checkout stations. And same will happen to development. Lots of tasks will be automated and less people will be needed as a result.
It is already happening. For example; setting up a production DB in primary-secondary mode; with daily back up and what not used to be quite a bit of manual grunt work. AWS Aurora and similar services handle 70-80% of the pain leaving you with setting up right table, index etc., Same in setting up a backend stack with DNS, load balancer etc.,
My guess is cloud services will automate even DB configuration. They have 100% visibility into the true production load pattern they will be able to suggest or even auto-configure things such as indexes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further support your point, AI is 90% efficient/good at driving. But the last 10% is so hard that some think it's impossible to have 100% self-driving cars.
Self-checkout at supermarkets does 90% of the work. The 10% of work remaining is done by a human supervising the self-checkout stations. And same will happen to development. Lots of tasks will be automated and less people will be needed as a result.
> Once an AI gets just 1% efficient at automation, it achieves 100% efficiency quickly thereafter This is really optimistic and completely overlooks the 80/20 problems that have plagued both AI automation and traditional automation. The AI sweeps up the easy cases and humans are left to fix, or paper over with heuristics, the remainder. Example? Speech-to-text. It's pretty good and the spread of automated closed capt…
One of two things tends to happen.
1) The 20 is a fundamentally different problem, but is itself solved by applying different new developments (e.g. most breakthrough devices: semiconductor manufacture and design, cellular phones, iPhone)
2) The 80 is so useful that work realigns to avoid / ignore the 20 (e.g. most mass market adoptions: horse drawn carriages, trains, automobiles, planes, television, personal and business computing)
The key thing realistic futurists harp on is what drives revolutions is superior utility versus the status quo.
If AI is "same as human, without the labor costs," it will be adopted gradually. If AI is "better than human in a fundamental way," it will be adopted overnight.
> Once an AI gets just 1% efficient at automation, it achieves 100% efficiency quickly thereafter This is really optimistic and completely overlooks the 80/20 problems that have plagued both AI automation and traditional automation. The AI sweeps up the easy cases and humans are left to fix, or paper over with heuristics, the remainder. Example? Speech-to-text. It's pretty good and the spread of automated closed capt…
I think this is thinking small. An AI doesn't need to use human readable programming languages or frameworks to solve problems. Also software engineers are expensive. Corporate greed will drive this faster.
That is the problem with GAN generated art. It is pretty good but then you don't have a psd to modify it so it is useless for most purposes.