[deleted]
Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#22I get worried when I see something like this. I'm inclined to believe a substantial number of researchers are currently being deliberately fuzzy about what "AI" can and cannot do. Why not call it algorithms and statistics? I think lay-people have a very skewed understanding of what has already been achieved through AI. They may also not understand the word algorithms but at least it doesn't make them think of Skynet.…
most actual researchers are entirely sick of the hype and are desperately trying to correct it, to no avail. i think laypeople just have a strong desire to get overexcited about AI and nothing is going to stop them.
Maybe researchers would like that, but PR is important even for academic researchers. Sexy and hyped topics get more media coverage, more funding and lead to more impressive CVs and careers.
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
>AI doesn't change what computers do, if affects only how it's done. Except AI is very much changing how things are done as well as what computers do. Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles, these are all novel applications for machines which carry significant real world risks to life and property. Moreover, AI in it's current state is a complex black box with unpredictable outputs for…
> Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.
These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.
These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
> There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#25> Machines powered by artificial intelligence increasingly mediate our social, cultural, economic and political interactions. What about non-AI powered machines that mediate our social, cultural, economic and political interactions? For example, science journal paywalls.
Here Ya go: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#26"Means and motive matter as much as ends. AIs don’t operate in isolation. Somebody designs them, somebody gathers the data to train them, somebody decides how to use the answers they give. Those human-scale decisions are –or should be– documented and understandable, especially for AIs operating in larger domains for higher stakes. It’s natural to want to ask a programmer how you can trust an AI. More revealing is to ask why they do."
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
>AI doesn't change what computers do, if affects only how it's done. Except AI is very much changing how things are done as well as what computers do. Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles, these are all novel applications for machines which carry significant real world risks to life and property. Moreover, AI in it's current state is a complex black box with unpredictable outputs for…
> Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.
And this folks, is the AI Effect in practice.
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
> There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years? That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).
People absolutely use it usefully, that it can be used as marketing fluff is a far more recent thing. If it's never been used usefully and isn't now, there's no point arguing about it because that war has been lost and if it has been used usefully redefining it makes no sense.
Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion so I'll leave it here. I just wish AI topics didn't always have someone say it wasn't "real AI".
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#29Human-Computer Interaction?
Human-Cyborg Relations?
Re: Researchers propose a new interdisciplinary subfield called “Machine Behaviour”
#30My highly cynical take as someone researching in ML is that all these interdisciplinary AI studies, AI policy, etc are mostly grifters trying to get in on the gold-rush. What has AI policy produced so far, really? Algorithm analysis and safety research is done on the algorithmic side, not on the policy side. Every time I have read an AI policy paper, it has been listings of desirable properties with absolutely no inp…
[deleted]