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

There is a blind spot in AI research

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#21

Post by blazespin »

ktRolster wrote: post #9
ggchappell wrote: post #2

Key quote: “People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.” -- Pedro Domingos, in The Master Algorithm (2015)

It's an entertaining quote, I laughed, but I think everyone who works in AI already knows this. It's not a blind spot.

Right, try saying that the next time we have a flash crash that really kills the markets.

There should be an addition to the statement though, which is "Unfortunately, Humans en masse are even stupider."

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#22

Post by ChoHag »

Mz wrote: post #18
ChoHag wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute. I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid p…

Well, that's a rather weasel-y non-answer answer, but it sounds to me like you think I am calling people "stupid" and that isn't what I am doing. I do know something about the background of intelligence testing and what not for humans. That definition of intelligence is inherently problematic. Again: My point is that people frame things far too often from a third party point of view. This inherently causes problems i…

Why do you people always feel the need to be offended by stuff?

Your point, framed and reframed, is basically sound. Take the word "intelligence" out of it, it doesn't help.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#23

Post by quickben »

Itsdijital wrote: post #20

Look at Tesla with it's "autopilot" feature. It's not really a true autopilot, more just a driving assist, but people treat it like such. I think it's easy for people to fall into the trap of relying really hard on something that is shiny, new, and works well despite being imperfect - even if it is explicitly stated to be. Nano tech has a similar problem at hand. There are indications that nanoparticles could have se…

No, it was marketed as an autopilot in the first place.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#24

Post by quickben »

frozenport wrote: post #4

The problem is the AI community is treating itself like non-experts. Explaining that AI needs to be controlled by telling horror stories of robot domination is good to motivate research work to lay people, but is a distraction for professionals.

That's fiction.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#25

Post by hiddencost »

ktRolster wrote: post #9
ggchappell wrote: post #2

Key quote: “People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.” -- Pedro Domingos, in The Master Algorithm (2015)

It's an entertaining quote, I laughed, but I think everyone who works in AI already knows this. It's not a blind spot.

Whether the people that pay us know this, though? Less clear.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#26

Post by posterboy »

Mz wrote: post #19
posterboy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

children aren't independent from their parents pretty much by definition. They do have individual thoughts, but if their thoughts are concerned with their dependence, are those thoughts really independent?

I have raised two children. They are now in their twenties. From the get go, I dealt with them as beings who did things for a reason, and that reason was generally assumed to be about dealing with their needs, not "doing" something to me. Many parents expect kids to "behave" and that definition of "behaving" is rooted very much in what adults see and think about the child, not what the child is experiencing. This is…

>You think dependence is a given and I am not even sure how to go forward with this conversation

Well, even you evidently are dependent. At least, if you telling me what you think is to some degree intended to solicit a response from me, your conversation depends on my answer. Humans are social, which is by definition pretty much not independent. Sure, this is splitting hairs over the meaning of dependence, but I didn't get what that's to do with AI, anyway. Surely, the AI depends on its design while the design constraints, the laws of nature if you will, are a given.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#27

Post by ktRolster »

blazespin wrote: post #21
ktRolster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an entertaining quote, I laughed, but I think everyone who works in AI already knows this. It's not a blind spot.

Right, try saying that the next time we have a flash crash that really kills the markets. There should be an addition to the statement though, which is "Unfortunately, Humans en masse are even stupider."

Flash crashes don't seem to kill markets. Too many people realize it's an opportunity, and quickly buy.

Also worth remembering, the stock market is not the economy

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#28

Post by Mz »

posterboy wrote: post #26
Mz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have raised two children. They are now in their twenties. From the get go, I dealt with them as beings who did things for a reason, and that reason was generally assumed to be about dealing with their needs, not "doing" something to me. Many parents expect kids to "behave" and that definition of "behaving" is rooted very much in what adults see and think about the child, not what the child is experiencing. This is…

>You think dependence is a given and I am not even sure how to go forward with this conversation Well, even you evidently are dependent. At least, if you telling me what you think is to some degree intended to solicit a response from me, your conversation depends on my answer. Humans are social, which is by definition pretty much not independent. Sure, this is splitting hairs over the meaning of dependence, but I did…

but I didn't get what that's to do with AI, anyway.

Humans get a lot of feedback other than explicit algorithms as to how to act or behave or what to do. A lot of that is social feedback and a lot of the expectations are about what other people think, in essence.

If you want an individual item with AI to be functional and "intelligent," we need to be able to write algorithms that work without that extra stuff. In order to effectively write those algorithms, we need to be able to think differently about this problem space than most people do.

Yes, conversation is inherently dependent on another party being involved. It isn't conversation if you just talk to yourself. Conversation has the capacity to add value.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#29

Post by posterboy »

Mz wrote: post #11
ChoHag wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to go down that path then your entire argument is moot because the definition of "intelligence" is so unclear.

I may have been unclear about how I am defining this, but it is not unclear to me and I don't see how "going down that path" automatically makes it unclear. Humans are pretty bad about imposing third party points of view on behavior and reasoning. Until we get better at understanding reasoning from a first person point of view for humans, we are going to have trouble figuring out how to write effective algorithms for…

I guess you are contradicting yourself, while you say

>humans don't really do intelligence all that well themselves

>[(the definition of) intelligence] is not unclear to me

because knowing the definition of something and knowing something is largely the same, so you say you know intelligence, but humans in general don't do.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#30

Post by matco11 »

Key thought: AI's social and cultural impact, in other words AI's implications on "social mobility" (your rags to riches stories, the American dream).

The authors are asking: in a hypothetical world where many decisions are AI assisted, what is the risk that AI systems slow social change because they are too dumb to understand exceptions, peculiarities, positive externalities? What can we do to establish parameters that will allow us to know when a certain AI system is trained well enough to be used in real world, with minimal risk of undesired social and cultural implications?

Post reply on HN