5 ms·

I feel the same way with the "this time it's different" bit, but I want to play the devil's advocate. While knowledge tasks are different than mechanical ones,

I feel the same way with the "this time it's different" bit, but I want to play the devil's advocate. While knowledge tasks are different than mechanical ones, you could argue that they're both "tasks" that are being "done" and require thinking in some way, but just more (or different) thinking is involved this time. I don't know if machines could automate things like ingenuity, although at the same time I don't know if the demand for ingenuity is large enough for people to have a stable job.

ThomPete 9y ago
You'd be wrong IMO: https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/861735184990961664 https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/861735184990961664
- krapht 9y ago
  There's human ingenuity in applying computer optimization techniques to a given problem. Actually using finite or boundary element analysis software requires a great deal of expertise in order not to get garbage results out. Strong AI is not coming anytime soon. People will still be necessary.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Thats really not true. Humans don't know how it works. Just that it does.
    - krapht 9y ago
      I'm not sure how much effort I want to spend arguing this. Have you ever used FEM/BEM software as a practicing engineer? In many cases, the design effort moves from making the structure to writing out all the possible structure constraints the design needs to satisfy. PS. This is not new at all if you look at the literature.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        You claimed human ingenuity was necessary yet here is an example of a solution that no human could have thought up or would have needed years to calculate yet it's better than any humans could have come up with. I.e. computers are already used for ingenious solutions and that's really all that matters here.
        krapht 9y ago
        Human ingenuity is needed for sanity checking the design output and ensuring the search space is sufficiently constrained so that a valid design is output. To say humans have no place in this is the same as saying in the future, my compiler will be so smart human programmers won't be necessary. Frankly that design is cool but not mind blowing. If you knew how much angst computer optimization packages can put you through, you might be more cynical. Even before NNs were all the rage there were (ex: genetic techniques, hill-climbing, simulated annealing, Monte-Carlo, pick-your-optimization-technique) to do exactly the things which that Twitter post referenced.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        I think you are mixing two different discussions. 1) AI is not there 2) Human ingenuity is necessary. With regards to 1) of course it's not there yet. But the progress is astounding and quite a few things will be possible even before we get to strong AI. With regards to 2) already today there are several areas where technology is better than humans to detect mistakes. In fact we use computers in many cases to test our work. This is an increasing trend and will result in end to end computer design and implemented solutions.
- danbolt 9y ago
  That is super cool! I love how the design isn't conventional at all, or not what I expected. My immediate response is to think that the machine was told to "do something that does X, Y, and Z while W". The computer kicked ass at this in your link, but if XYZ were more fuzzy, or required more lateral thinking, how would a machine fare? I guess a machine could try keep trying, but the number of options to take might explode over time. Thoughts?
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    They all had the same information available. I will see if I can find the original paper.
- staticassertion 9y ago
  I think what's interesting about this is that the one on the right looks ridiculous and complicated. At some point a human being has to know how to use it, and rather than a trivial interface, it's a complex one. Many would likely still reach for the far left. A human would have to make a call saying "Wow, this is not a compromise we can make, other humans are not going to use this". That said, it's a moot point - I am in full agreement that the two revolutions are different.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > At some point a human being has to know how to use it You might find the first two comments interesting: @russell usability of the node on the far right is a nightmare. Where do the humans attach the cables? No empathy in AI design. What makes you think humans will have to attach the cables?
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Thats not really a good argument as if humans was intended to install it also here you could have machines to make sure it got properly connected just like we have for sillicon chips. The argument actually speaks against what he was trying to say. He is basically saying that humans aren't clever enough to utilize optimal solutions which is a weakness not a strength.
      - majewsky 9y ago
        > He is basically saying that humans aren't clever enough to utilize optimal solutions Your phrasing is too harsh since "optimal" is not defined thoroughly.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Any solution that uses less material and is just as strong is considered optimal in my book. It is indeed defined as the blurp also says. I am trying to find the original paper again.
- coconut_crab 9y ago
  The optimised process was only for weight and strength, not manufacturing. How would you craft the right one? by 3D printing? Good luck with the required strength, while the human designed one would cost a few dozens bucks here, hand welded. As a mechanical engineer, when you design something, think of the poor guy who will have to make manufacturing plan for it. Yes, maybe one day computer will be able to do both, but the problems still come from human, and human is notoriously known for undefined behaviour.
wvenable 9y ago
A fair amount of jobs require ingenuity; the few people who responsible for that are then surrounded by a dozen people who support them. Even without AI, as software developers we have been removing the need for those support people.

ThomPete 9y ago

You'd be wrong IMO: https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/861735184990961664 https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/861735184990961664

krapht 9y ago
There's human ingenuity in applying computer optimization techniques to a given problem. Actually using finite or boundary element analysis software requires a great deal of expertise in order not to get garbage results out. Strong AI is not coming anytime soon. People will still be necessary.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Thats really not true. Humans don't know how it works. Just that it does.
  - krapht 9y ago
    I'm not sure how much effort I want to spend arguing this. Have you ever used FEM/BEM software as a practicing engineer? In many cases, the design effort moves from making the structure to writing out all the possible structure constraints the design needs to satisfy. PS. This is not new at all if you look at the literature.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      You claimed human ingenuity was necessary yet here is an example of a solution that no human could have thought up or would have needed years to calculate yet it's better than any humans could have come up with. I.e. computers are already used for ingenious solutions and that's really all that matters here.
      - krapht 9y ago
        Human ingenuity is needed for sanity checking the design output and ensuring the search space is sufficiently constrained so that a valid design is output. To say humans have no place in this is the same as saying in the future, my compiler will be so smart human programmers won't be necessary. Frankly that design is cool but not mind blowing. If you knew how much angst computer optimization packages can put you through, you might be more cynical. Even before NNs were all the rage there were (ex: genetic techniques, hill-climbing, simulated annealing, Monte-Carlo, pick-your-optimization-technique) to do exactly the things which that Twitter post referenced.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        I think you are mixing two different discussions. 1) AI is not there 2) Human ingenuity is necessary. With regards to 1) of course it's not there yet. But the progress is astounding and quite a few things will be possible even before we get to strong AI. With regards to 2) already today there are several areas where technology is better than humans to detect mistakes. In fact we use computers in many cases to test our work. This is an increasing trend and will result in end to end computer design and implemented solutions.
danbolt 9y ago
That is super cool! I love how the design isn't conventional at all, or not what I expected. My immediate response is to think that the machine was told to "do something that does X, Y, and Z while W". The computer kicked ass at this in your link, but if XYZ were more fuzzy, or required more lateral thinking, how would a machine fare? I guess a machine could try keep trying, but the number of options to take might explode over time. Thoughts?
- ThomPete 9y ago
  They all had the same information available. I will see if I can find the original paper.
staticassertion 9y ago
I think what's interesting about this is that the one on the right looks ridiculous and complicated. At some point a human being has to know how to use it, and rather than a trivial interface, it's a complex one. Many would likely still reach for the far left. A human would have to make a call saying "Wow, this is not a compromise we can make, other humans are not going to use this". That said, it's a moot point - I am in full agreement that the two revolutions are different.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > At some point a human being has to know how to use it You might find the first two comments interesting: @russell usability of the node on the far right is a nightmare. Where do the humans attach the cables? No empathy in AI design. What makes you think humans will have to attach the cables?
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Thats not really a good argument as if humans was intended to install it also here you could have machines to make sure it got properly connected just like we have for sillicon chips. The argument actually speaks against what he was trying to say. He is basically saying that humans aren't clever enough to utilize optimal solutions which is a weakness not a strength.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      > He is basically saying that humans aren't clever enough to utilize optimal solutions Your phrasing is too harsh since "optimal" is not defined thoroughly.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Any solution that uses less material and is just as strong is considered optimal in my book. It is indeed defined as the blurp also says. I am trying to find the original paper again.
coconut_crab 9y ago
The optimised process was only for weight and strength, not manufacturing. How would you craft the right one? by 3D printing? Good luck with the required strength, while the human designed one would cost a few dozens bucks here, hand welded. As a mechanical engineer, when you design something, think of the poor guy who will have to make manufacturing plan for it. Yes, maybe one day computer will be able to do both, but the problems still come from human, and human is notoriously known for undefined behaviour.

wvenable 9y ago

A fair amount of jobs require ingenuity; the few people who responsible for that are then surrounded by a dozen people who support them. Even without AI, as software developers we have been removing the need for those support people.