4 ms·

You shouldn't judge an article based on who wrote it, whether it's Garry Kasparov or someone "in the field" of AI. Sure, people are more likely to listen to Ka

You shouldn't judge an article based on who wrote it, whether it's Garry Kasparov or someone "in the field" of AI. Sure, people are more likely to listen to Kasparov because he's an intellectual megalodon. But by dismissing anything not written by an "expert", you're making the exact same mistake.

opportune 9y ago
I did read the article/watch the video and it still is crap though. I agree that we shouldn't make dissemination of knowledge contingent on holding degrees or having accomplishments in that area, but I still have never really seen a good article on AI by someone outside of the field itself.
- digsmahler 9y ago
  I really love this article about Fan Hui and AlphaGo, [The Sadness and Beauty of Watching Google's AI Play Go](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-googles-ai-play-go/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-google...). It's the first time I've read a balanced intimation of what it can be like interacting with artificial intelligences. I come away from this and the Kasparov article feeling that AIs will be friends as well as partners.
- terravion 9y ago
  I think your criticism misses the point of this article--it is an article about what it is like to be displaced by AI, not on AI itself. This an interview by perhaps the most prominent and intelligent person to be so publicly displaced by AI. I would submit that AI researchers have zero expertise in what it is like to be displaced by AI. Garry Kasparov on the other hand, graciously and publicly accepted a lifetime of work and his position as the best in the world becoming obsolete. That he came out of that optimistic and interested in continued technological progress, including in AI, is interesting. Also, his observation that humans are explorers who have passion and purpose is a really useful one for (especially non-technical) people trying to find their way in world where AI is a reality.
fao_ 9y ago
> But by dismissing anything not written by an "expert", you're making the exact same mistake. Uh, no. You're simply favouring people who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching something, over people who had a spare month and thought "You know what? I'd love to write an article over something I know absolutely nothing about". I love to read about amateurs and autodidacts as much as the next person on HN, but the simple truth is that most people talking about a field, who have not majored in it, are not going to be either of those people. Autodidacts who put the effort in are rare these days, what is significantly less rare are people who write articles about a subject, who haven't read even the basic texts on said subject. This is true even for specialists who are majored in another field, such as: Stephen Hawking, Stephen Wolfram, Elon Musk (Although I admit it is dubious to think of a CEO as a specialist in this sense), and now Garry Kasparov. Rationalwiki has a list dedicated to people who are Nobel prize winners in on field, talking absolute bullshit about another field: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease (That is, bullshit in the sense of nonsense, not in the insult sense). Actually, I would probably go so far as to say that this attitude is strictly against autodidacticism, because where autodidacts favour knowledge about a subject, the other favours arguments from authority and complacence of thought.
- opportune 9y ago
  You put it better than I did. I would liken the current media frenzy over AI to past media frenzies over quantum mechanics. There's an overabundance of non-experts giving incorrect or overly philosophical opinions on the field. These often lead readers with no background on the subject with incorrect assumptions on the matter (e.g. "quantum mechanics means consciousness is a quantifiable physical phenomenon").
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Uh, no. You're simply favouring people who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching something, over people who had a spare month and thought "You know what? I'd love to write an article over something I know absolutely nothing about"." Do you not think the people that have dedicated their lives to studying AI are likely to be more optimistic about its uses than the population at large? I dislike the 'opinions as news' trend on the whole, but there is room in public debates for non-experts in a specific field. The knowledge required to develop the technology is different from the knowledge needed to be able to engage in debates about its uses. AI has the power to take jobs away from humans. This is not a controversial view, mainly because it's already happened (such as in car manufacturing). In my opinion, there's not enough debate about the implications of the increasing sophistication of AI (not enough debate amongst the general population, there's plenty in tech circles).

opportune 9y ago

I did read the article/watch the video and it still is crap though. I agree that we shouldn't make dissemination of knowledge contingent on holding degrees or having accomplishments in that area, but I still have never really seen a good article on AI by someone outside of the field itself.

digsmahler 9y ago
I really love this article about Fan Hui and AlphaGo, [The Sadness and Beauty of Watching Google's AI Play Go](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-googles-ai-play-go/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sadness-beauty-watching-google...). It's the first time I've read a balanced intimation of what it can be like interacting with artificial intelligences. I come away from this and the Kasparov article feeling that AIs will be friends as well as partners.
terravion 9y ago
I think your criticism misses the point of this article--it is an article about what it is like to be displaced by AI, not on AI itself. This an interview by perhaps the most prominent and intelligent person to be so publicly displaced by AI. I would submit that AI researchers have zero expertise in what it is like to be displaced by AI. Garry Kasparov on the other hand, graciously and publicly accepted a lifetime of work and his position as the best in the world becoming obsolete. That he came out of that optimistic and interested in continued technological progress, including in AI, is interesting. Also, his observation that humans are explorers who have passion and purpose is a really useful one for (especially non-technical) people trying to find their way in world where AI is a reality.

fao_ 9y ago

> But by dismissing anything not written by an "expert", you're making the exact same mistake. Uh, no. You're simply favouring people who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching something, over people who had a spare month and thought "You know what? I'd love to write an article over something I know absolutely nothing about". I love to read about amateurs and autodidacts as much as the next person on HN, but the simple truth is that most people talking about a field, who have not majored in it, are not going to be either of those people. Autodidacts who put the effort in are rare these days, what is significantly less rare are people who write articles about a subject, who haven't read even the basic texts on said subject. This is true even for specialists who are majored in another field, such as: Stephen Hawking, Stephen Wolfram, Elon Musk (Although I admit it is dubious to think of a CEO as a specialist in this sense), and now Garry Kasparov. Rationalwiki has a list dedicated to people who are Nobel prize winners in on field, talking absolute bullshit about another field: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease (That is, bullshit in the sense of nonsense, not in the insult sense). Actually, I would probably go so far as to say that this attitude is strictly against autodidacticism, because where autodidacts favour knowledge about a subject, the other favours arguments from authority and complacence of thought.

opportune 9y ago
You put it better than I did. I would liken the current media frenzy over AI to past media frenzies over quantum mechanics. There's an overabundance of non-experts giving incorrect or overly philosophical opinions on the field. These often lead readers with no background on the subject with incorrect assumptions on the matter (e.g. "quantum mechanics means consciousness is a quantifiable physical phenomenon").
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Uh, no. You're simply favouring people who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching something, over people who had a spare month and thought "You know what? I'd love to write an article over something I know absolutely nothing about"." Do you not think the people that have dedicated their lives to studying AI are likely to be more optimistic about its uses than the population at large? I dislike the 'opinions as news' trend on the whole, but there is room in public debates for non-experts in a specific field. The knowledge required to develop the technology is different from the knowledge needed to be able to engage in debates about its uses. AI has the power to take jobs away from humans. This is not a controversial view, mainly because it's already happened (such as in car manufacturing). In my opinion, there's not enough debate about the implications of the increasing sophistication of AI (not enough debate amongst the general population, there's plenty in tech circles).