5 ms·
Yeah, the way that voice commands were recognized via pattern-matching the syllabic rhythms rather than via the actual meaning of the commands was, in hindsight
by nkoren 8y ago
Yeah, the way that voice commands were recognized via pattern-matching the syllabic rhythms rather than via the actual meaning of the commands was, in hindsight, kind of cheating.
But consider the degree to which today's neural nets are simply engaging in (admittedly far more complex) pattern-matching, with little more understanding of the actual meaning than Elektro.
A lot of today's AI researchers/enthusiasts/hypesters like to imagine that there isn't really anything fundamental missing from this picture, that it's just a matter of the pattern-matching getting better until it really becomes useable in a general-purpose sort of way. But I'm sure that Elektro's makers could have told themselves the same thing. "Look at how sophisticated Elektro is, with 48 electrical relays! Imagine what it will be able to do with hundreds of relays! Or thousands! The possibilities are virtually limitless!"
- perl4ever 8y agoYes, but false hopes keep people going. And these days, your garden variety automaton has billions of tiny switches. There is a well-known saying that "quantity has a quality all its own". My uninformed opinion is that there is probably some crucial learning mechanism missing from current AI but I suspect the raw power of current electronics is completely sufficient. Perhaps we just need a way to couple one module to another to automate training in some way we haven't invented yet but will seem obvious when we do.
- gattilorenz 8y ago> consider the degree to which today's neural nets are simply engaging in (admittedly far more complex) pattern-matching, with little more understanding of the actual meaning than Elektro. Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to...