3 ms·

Optimization and statistical algorithms known as "AI" are far far far away from surpassing humans. Philosophically, it will never happen, we can create intellig

by bartq 8y ago

Optimization and statistical algorithms known as "AI" are far far far away from surpassing humans. Philosophically, it will never happen, we can create intelligence at best equal to human being's, but creating that kind of "AI" would be equal to creation of life which is beyond scope of technology. AI is as dangerous as we decide it can be, for example we can create gun with camera and shoot to people based on their looks. Law and common sense should not allow that, that's criminal activity. I think AI should grow, and take over boring and repetitive tasks. This will free up many people form dull jobs and new jobs on top of that will be created, i.e. jobs to tune and organize AI units of computations and talk to other people about results.

Joeri 8y ago
The mistake is viewing AI as somehow on the same curve as human intelligence. As if AI gets better and better and edges closer on the curve to human intelligence. It’s more a different kind of intelligence which happens to be able to do some of the same tasks. It already far exceeds human ability, at the tasks that particular flavor of intelligence is good at. We don’t need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and asking which tasks they’re uniquely capable of doing.
- sorokod 8y ago
  There is a comment up this thread saying that the blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem. You comment here sounds very similar.
- taneq 8y ago
  > We don’t need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and asking which tasks they’re uniquely capable of doing. I remember seeing a post here a while ago, talking about essentially this process. The poster was disappointed that AI researchers tend to get to the point where a new approach starts bearing fruit, and then get sidetracked finding applications for the new approach and forget about the search for 'real' AI. IIRC this was also suggested as an explanation for the "once we can do it it doesn't count as AI" phenomenon.

by bartq 8y ago

Joeri 8y ago

The mistake is viewing AI as somehow on the same curve as human intelligence. As if AI gets better and better and edges closer on the curve to human intelligence. It’s more a different kind of intelligence which happens to be able to do some of the same tasks. It already far exceeds human ability, at the tasks that particular flavor of intelligence is good at. We don’t need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and asking which tasks they’re uniquely capable of doing.

sorokod 8y ago
There is a comment up this thread saying that the blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem. You comment here sounds very similar.
taneq 8y ago
> We don’t need to be looking at things people do and asking how deep neural nets can do those as well, we need to be looking at deep neural nets and asking which tasks they’re uniquely capable of doing. I remember seeing a post here a while ago, talking about essentially this process. The poster was disappointed that AI researchers tend to get to the point where a new approach starts bearing fruit, and then get sidetracked finding applications for the new approach and forget about the search for 'real' AI. IIRC this was also suggested as an explanation for the "once we can do it it doesn't count as AI" phenomenon.