251–260 of 264 posts
IBM Watson is bad for the "AI" community because when non-experts see IBM repeatedly fail they assume the whole field is nonsense. Hopefully IBM will be more cautious in what they claim to be possible. Hype and deceit do not belong in healthcare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
using strlen(src) is also an amateur mistake, because the whole point of doing that (stncpy family, ensuring dst ends with null) is that dst might not be large enough to fit string from src. It has to be the size of dst, which can only be known at the site of allocation in C (except for a non-clean way of looking at heap metadata).
There’s no reason to believe from these two lines that the memory is insufficiently allocated. It’s just two lines. The point wasn’t to share a safe string copy routine, the point of the post was to illustrate a single mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the change request come complete with specific requirements on what the interface should include? Because it sounds like they produced exactly what was asked for: a JSON interface. If the requirements were poorly specified, you can’t lay all the blame on them.
Did the change request come complete with specific requirements I get that you do need specs but c'mon, if you ask a plumber to fit a pipe from A to B and he uses one made out of cardboard would you think it was reasonable for him to say "well you didn't specify it had to carry water, pay me 3x as much to put it right". And then you find out that this is the first time he's even seen a pipe, but his business card say…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use & depend upon plenty of products that are built upon AI - GMail spam filtering & categorized inbox, Google image search, YouTube & Netflix recommendations, cheque OCR at my ATM, predictive keyboards on my phone, Amazon's "people also buy with this product" feature, Google translate, computer opponents in games that I play, and all of the signals that feed into Google Search. The irony is that not one of these b…
I would argue that all of your examples have failed to be anything even remotely resembling AI, just data crunching to fit most use cases. I don't use GMail but I do regularly use Google image search, Translate, YouTube, Netflix and predictive typing via SwitfKey. And IMHO they all suck horribly (SwiftKey still sucks pretty bad after 8 years of learning from me). Google Translate is getting better and I have recently…
Translate can be useful at times...like once a year when I want to comprehend a Japanese website, usually I close the tab after 2 minutes.
I used GMail for many years and still do to some degree but I'm moving to a different mail provider. GMail's spam filter is great!
Not sure, since 2 years it became acceptable to make no difference between ML and AI. ML appears smart because of bizillions of training samples and I feel very impressed when I hear of that. But yeah, at the end of the day it doesn't have exactly the biggest impact on me... ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The only people who do it well enough are PHDs This is really untrue. Maybe that's part of your hiring issue.
It’s always cute when people say stuff like that. We’ve tried quite a few and none have delivered any sort of useable quality.
Have you tried hiring people who have documented experience doing ML commercially? Because I could understand how you get bummed out a lot if you hire recent grads to do ML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The line is clear: everything today branded "AI" is just applied statistics. AI is a buzzword. I don't know what the definition of intelligence is, but I have a feeling it doesn't rest anywhere near concepts like function approximation, and that's all even the most sophisticated "AIs" at Google or Facebook or Apple boil down to.
What was not clear from your earlier comment, and is now, is that when you say AI you don't mean AI as is practiced by most of academia and the industry but the vision of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). If so, yes, that's a good point to make. However, it is debatable whether the path of statistical learning wont lead to AGI, or is not how our brains function, or the truth partly does comprise of statistical l…
> when you say AI you don't mean AI as is practiced by most of academia and the industry but the vision of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
What I actually mean is people practicing what they call "AI" in academia and the industry have co-opted the name to make what they do sound more interesting. First it was called "statistics". Then it was called "pattern matching". Then it was called "machine learning". Now it's called "AI". But it hasn't changed meaningfully through any iteration of these labels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
using strlen(src) is also an amateur mistake, because the whole point of doing that (stncpy family, ensuring dst ends with null) is that dst might not be large enough to fit string from src. It has to be the size of dst, which can only be known at the site of allocation in C (except for a non-clean way of looking at heap metadata).
There’s no reason to believe from these two lines that the memory is insufficiently allocated. It’s just two lines. The point wasn’t to share a safe string copy routine, the point of the post was to illustrate a single mistake.
It never makes sense to use strlen() for an argument to strncpy(). Only the size of the destination buffer makes sense for strncpy() (usually sizeof(dst)). For other cases you would probably use memcpy().
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> outsourced third-world contractor output Do we know that the developers were outsourced or which countries they were from?
Yes, in an inferred way at least. Look at the IBM jobs / careers page and locations. You can see where different types of openings are. Last year I looked at the AI jobs because I was curious where they were doing the work. Mumbai was first in terms of open positions for machine learning, if I recall correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was not clear from your earlier comment, and is now, is that when you say AI you don't mean AI as is practiced by most of academia and the industry but the vision of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). If so, yes, that's a good point to make. However, it is debatable whether the path of statistical learning wont lead to AGI, or is not how our brains function, or the truth partly does comprise of statistical l…
I didn't make an earlier comment. You're replying to my one and only comment. > when you say AI you don't mean AI as is practiced by most of academia and the industry but the vision of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). What I actually mean is people practicing what they call "AI" in academia and the industry have co-opted the name to make what they do sound more interesting. First it was called "statistics". The…
To your point, I agree. They hype around the area has evolved much faster than the area itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something that actually learns on its own and is not completely stumped when it encounters something new but actually learns . When it recognizes failure it should go and start learning by itself, i.e. try to get more data and analyze that and do its own trial and error - so that it actually grows in capabilities (on its own).
This excludes most human intelligence.