Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No, machines can’t read better than humans

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 47 posts

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#3

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

Perhaps once a computer can understand context to the point of the human and produce a worthy set of opinions, we could automate the Hacker News comments section and save us all some time.

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#4

Post by TremendousJudge »

iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

we're much farther away than 'a couple of years'. these reading comprehension bots basically cheat tests, using grammar rules and keyword matching. they don't actually build a body of knowledge based on what they read, they just go to the source text and search. it may look smart, but it isn't, which is what the article is saying

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#6

Post by O_H_E »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3
iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

Perhaps once a computer can understand context to the point of the human and produce a worthy set of opinions, we could automate the Hacker News comments section and save us all some time.

And automate the readers and save the rest of the time

Seriously: if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#7

Post by kthejoker2 »

iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

Do you have any research evidence to back this up?

I just haven't seen (any?) research on the advanced capabilities they're discussing in the article - open-ended interpretation, being able to answer "why" questions, being able to synthesize information from multiple sources, etc.

I think we're still kind of a long way from these systems, maybe a decade or so, barring major leaps in hardware.

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#8

Post by eeks »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #4
iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

we're much farther away than 'a couple of years'. these reading comprehension bots basically cheat tests, using grammar rules and keyword matching. they don't actually build a body of knowledge based on what they read, they just go to the source text and search. it may look smart, but it isn't, which is what the article is saying

This. Where there is no ability to summarize or paraphrase there is no comprehension. We need to stop calling fast pattern matching intelligence.

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#9

Post by AndrewOMartin »

iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

I've been waiting a couple of years since 1955 when McCarthy said he'd be done in a couple of months.

This isn't just snark either, it's a justifiable exaggeration to say that since then all General AI projects have failed for exactly the same reason; failure to generalise from a specialised solution.

Re: No, machines can’t read better than humans

#10

Post by dtech »

erfgh wrote: post #5
iambateman wrote: post #2

Hmm, yes computers can’t outpace (highly literate) humans in reading comprehension today, but give it a couple of years and we will have a very different situation.

We've been hearing this for decades.

Much like Fusion energy, AI that is able to pass the Turing test is 30 years away and has been so for 50 years.
Post reply on HN