One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
ai100.stanford.edu
One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#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
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#3I find it surprising that they don't mention Numenta's work on Hierarchical Temporal Memory.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#4"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
The machines have clearly made a deal with the reptilians and infiltrated Stanford. :)
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#5Meta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages
Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The title of this post has since been edited to '100 year study' which I think supports my initial point.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#6"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."
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#7Meta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The t…
What's the significance behind # pages? Are they double-spaced; 10pt font?
All I would care about is quality... not length. The latter seems like a carryover from shitty homework assignments.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#8Meta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The t…
[deleted]
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#9Meta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The t…
When I write, I get more clickthroughs on "3000-word article on X" than "Article on X".
I think people use it as a proxy for depth. It's how they know "Oh, this isn't just a quick blurb or press release, this is the real thing. Someone put effort into this."
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#10"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 long.