I don't think there has to be a huge controversy here. It's perfectly plausible to build a system that contains a hybrid of human and machine intelligence, where the humans work on the more fuzzy questions that cannot be directly answered yet, and the interactions used to fill in the gap as the AI is improved for later.
Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
121–130 of 162 posts
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#122"I'm AI but humans help train me" The implication to me is that the chat is with a human, who is using an AI tool with the intention of training that tool. What better way to train a new service than to launch it, then answer all the weird, unexpected questions with humans? Gradually more of the questions get answered, the AI gets better trained, and the human-AI becomes increasing more AI. Further, as the AI gets be…
Any good chatterbot has a script or set of scripts to answer questions about its nature, relationship to its creator, etc.
The presence of a delay does not mean there is no A.I. there. Not everything is as fast as Google search, for instance IBM Watson would think about a problem for a few seconds, which is fine because it only needs to be about as fast as a human.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#123>The most noteworthy aspect of this reply is that “Google Maps” wasn’t capitalized, suggesting that maybe, just maybe, a human typed it out in a hurry. Or they're smart enough to add random mistakes. When I started a project for setting up multiple ways to say the same form letter, I thought of adding a random-typo feature to make it look like humans were writing it. I'm sure these guys are at least as cheeky as me..…
But they don't try to convince you M is a human. Indeed the opposite. So it would be rather stupid to add typos to an AI, when you want people to see it as an AI
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#124"I'm AI but humans help train me" The implication to me is that the chat is with a human, who is using an AI tool with the intention of training that tool. What better way to train a new service than to launch it, then answer all the weird, unexpected questions with humans? Gradually more of the questions get answered, the AI gets better trained, and the human-AI becomes increasing more AI. Further, as the AI gets be…
The AI can assist the human as well. It may not be confident that its response is accurate and the human just clicks send.
Great point -- if a system has a good probability estimator it can send questionable answers for review to raise accuracy up to the commercially useful level.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#125I don't think there has to be a huge controversy here. It's perfectly plausible to build a system that contains a hybrid of human and machine intelligence, where the humans work on the more fuzzy questions that cannot be directly answered yet, and the interactions used to fill in the gap as the AI is improved for later.
Yep! There's a lot of research going on in that area. For example, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702416
Some recent work on fusing machine learning with Mechanical Turk workers to create "sensors".
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I look forward to a darkly-humorous future in which we pit poorly-paid third-world citizens against each other in wars of call center attrition. This sounds like a 10 page side story in a Neil Stephenson Book. I love it.
It's very nearly part of the strategy of one of the players in Stross's Accelerando ( http://www.amazon.com/Accelerando-Singularity-Charles-Stross... ).
Such a great book.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#127I wonder if you can ask M to use fewer exclamation points. From the conversations I saw in the article, it's a little too chirpy (or should I say "clippy") for my taste.
I had the same sentiment. Similarly - when I ask Siri what time it is on my new Apple TV, after midnight it always says Zzzz... as if it's judging me for staying up late.
I'm not a huge fan of AIs fake emoting all the time. Occasionally, it's amusing, but all the time it just rubs me the wrong way.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The opinion is split as to whether or not it’s a real AI, and there seems to be no way of proving its nature on way or the other." Clearly, the author didn't even do the most basic fact checking. Since, Facebook clearly told everyone that M was going to be AI that was assisted by humans. It's literally in the announcement post: https://www.facebook.com/Davemarcus/posts/10156070660595195 > "It's powered by artifici…
You know how to read, great for you. But that doesn't say much, as all AI that was ever attempted was trained and supervised by people. Plus this was blackbox testing and I found it to be an interested read nonetheless.
> You know how to read, great for you.
Please don't be uncivil on Hacker News.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#129Can M wade through phone support menus and cancel Comcast subscriptions? I look forward to a darkly-humorous future in which we pit poorly-paid third-world citizens against each other in wars of call center attrition. Better, once we equip them with those sound-board UIs that play pre-recorded answers in native English-speaking voices (can't find the link), English can become a transmission protocol that few people d…
> I look forward to a darkly-humorous future in which we pit poorly-paid third-world citizens against each other in wars of call center attrition. This sounds like a 10 page side story in a Neil Stephenson Book. I love it.
Was thinking Douglas Adams myself.
Re: Facebook M – The Anti-Turing Test
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thomas Edison claimed to have a long lasting light bulb before he actually did. He showed it to reporters one at a time in a booth. Between observers, he would change out the light for a fresh one. Source "How We Got to Now: Light" (on Netflix currently, at least in the US). Found the clip on PBS. Skip to 2:20 for the specific part: http://www.pbs.org/how-we-got-to-now/big-ideas/light/
I thought Edison had mostly been dismissed as not even remotely as great an inventor as most people thought he was?
To a tiny universe of Reddit/XKCD readers perhaps.
In the rest of the world, for example at the offices of Con Edison, or in the city of Edison, New Jersey, he's still considered to be somewhat important.