41–50 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool! I wasn't aware. Where I can go buy one?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-dri...
"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics
Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing the point completely. Of course there were people who believed that Go would be able to beat humans. Just as today there are people who believe that AI can be a treat. But it wasn't a majority of people who believed Go would be able just as it isn't a majority who believes AI can be a threat. I.e. just because the majority believe something doesn't mean it will be so (or vice versa)
You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017. And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.
A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then.
Here is another expert
"In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a professional Go player. (To his credit, he also said he didn’t like making predictions.)"
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/
You also find highly prominent expert opinions that AI is going to be dangerous and experts who don't believe it. Most people don't believe it, most people believe robots wont take jobs either.
And no I don't need to provide you with anything since you have only problem my point that most people didn't believe it would happen which is why you didn't link to anything saying that most believed it would happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-dri...
That's a link to an about a company who is testing autonomous taxis. You could also link to Google's self driving car tests. Neither are ready for sale to the general public.
"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics
That said, it's typical for even experts to underestimate progress in rapidly advancing fields. No one predicted AI would be so good by now, say 5-10 years ago. Now computers are beating Go and rivaling human vision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure the tiger has intent on eating something...
Sure but it doesn't need to be as smart as humans to hurt us and neither do AI it just needs to be everywhere. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption.
So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a tiger with ease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017. And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.
Again you are missing the point. A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then. Here is another expert "In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a profe…
Reply to below: You're the one asserting that experts thought Go wouldn't be dominated by computers for a long time. The burden of proof lies on you. "Some experts thought it would happen by now, some didn't, there was no consensus" doesn't have quite the ring to it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go
You forgot the rest of that quote: "...based on the same method of intensive analysis—brute force, basically—that Deep Blue employed for chess."
It's a surprise-free document. It could have read roughly the same in 1985, but different technologies would have been mentioned. The big change in AI is that it now makes money. AI used to be about five academic groups with 10-20 people each. The early startups all failed. Now it's an industry, maybe three orders of magnitude bigger. This accelerates progress. Technically, the big change in AI is that digesting raw…