5 ms·
One reason to be scared is: it's a significant improvement. Only a couple of years ago, this was probably the state of the art: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~yann/res
by partycoder 11y ago
One reason to be scared is: it's a significant improvement.
Only a couple of years ago, this was probably the state of the art: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~yann/research/norb/ http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~yann/research/norb/
You can see how much progress has been made since then.
Yes, some people have been able to find synthetic images that can fool a deep learning based solution.
Even humans are stupid too at young ages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I
Scientists will understand why and find a way around it eventually.
The field we call "human intelligence tasks" is narrowing down at a really aggressive pace and that is scary.
- burkaman 11y agoThis article is encouraging people to use deep learning. It's for people who are scared to try it, not scared of it.
- partycoder 11y agothe site seemed to be unavailable when i tried to access it first. my bad.
- argonaut 11y agoThere really needs to be an HN rule against commenting before reading (at least part of) the article...
- Houshalter 11y agoThat's not entirely fair when sites are unavailable. And especially annoying is when sites are behind paywalls. Sometimes I use an old mobile device, and most news sites cause the browser to crash. So I just read the comments instead. Though leaving a top level comment based just on the title is a little extreme. Even if you know the subject, you have no idea what the argument or information in the article is. I wouldn't mind replying to someone else's comment though.
- argonaut 11y agoThat was not the state of the art then. You can read the state of the art for yourself in the 2012 ImageNet competition (see the 2nd place team): http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2012/results.html http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2012/results.html. Fisher vectors + SIFT + GIST + some other hand-crafted features.
- jdonaldson 11y agoYou're main points are true, but I think you have one thing backwards. We're not finding a way around stupidity, we need to teach machines to perceive things the same way we do. All of the Piaget conservation illustrations are critical towards understanding bottom up "raw" perception that is untempered by top down logic. I'll actually be more impressed when we can show machines functioning in the same way.
- nl 11y agoThe field we call "human intelligence tasks" is narrowing down at a really aggressive pace and that is scary. Why is this scary? It's fantastic! Maybe someday soon we'll have a real discussion about what we mean by "intelligence".
- Houshalter 11y agoBecause one day they will exceed humans. When that happens they will very likely destroy us. They wouldn't have any reason to keep us around.