One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

Post by gnahckire » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 6:21 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #10

skurilyak wrote: post #2

"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…

Post by Jach » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #44

argonaut wrote: post #40

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…

Post by js8 » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:32 AM UTC

threepipeproblm wrote: post #6

skurilyak wrote: post #2

"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

What immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."

Post by deepinthewoods » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 9:33 AM UTC

Jach wrote: post #73

ThomPete wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The real irony is that Rémi said that in 2014. Sometime around then if not before deep learning was showing it could knock down more and more problems, it was pretty clear to anyone who was keeping up that if someone figured out how to combine deep learning with Rémi's work on monte-carlo tree search they ought to end up with a powerful go bot, perhaps even pro-beating. What took me personally by surprise was that th…

Post by whage » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 9:56 AM UTC