3 ms·
Contemporary ML is really (and by that I mean human-level) good for some things: classifying images, guiding a car along prominently visible lane lines in perfe
by Hydraulix989 10y ago
Contemporary ML is really (and by that I mean human-level) good for some things: classifying images, guiding a car along prominently visible lane lines in perfect conditions, predicting timeseries that have latent patterns.
It's NOT good at the general "bot" problem (or should I say "true AI" problem), and some "features" of human assistants like EQ, generalized task completion, and complex planning are decades away from getting solved.
I would even argue that a mechanized/automated Clara would HAVE to pass the Turing test in order to work.
- jasonlaska 10y agoYour last comment on the seemingly circular relationship between Clara and a "turing-test-passing bot" is especially salient. This reference (found in the second footnote in the post) http://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/95-1/Papers/125.pdf http://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/95-1/Papers/125.pdf has a lot of interesting perspectives on the role of machine learning vs. human intelligence.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoI am going to read that actually, thanks. On the note of bots and your denouncement of the Turing Test as a metric, I do remember an article on here a couple of days ago hinting that one of the biggest frustrations of customer service calls is dealing with scripted responses, bots if you will, instead of real humans. I do wonder whether alleviating this user frustration will amount to passing some "similar" but possibly weaker test.
- jasonlaska 10y ago"The customer service test" -- I like it.