3 ms·

> Video filter: not AI, doesn't work as a video filter (aka searching youtube isn't actually searching video content), also nobody but NSA cares This video see

> Video filter: not AI, doesn't work as a video filter (aka searching youtube isn't actually searching video content), also nobody but NSA cares This video seems to disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTbptEdKhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTbptEdKhY (youtube is not ONLY using video content, not even mostly, but it is using it) > Talking machines: HMM existed in useful form in the 80s HMMs are machine learning. Sure it's statistical learning, but come on. And I would further argue that wavenet is a hell of a lot better. > Programming robots with 'AI' -no you absolutely cannot do this; anyone who tries to sell you this is a charlatan Meaning it hasn't been productionized yet (and therefore it's very hard to do atm) yes. True. But it's also been shown to be possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZUr7jxoqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZUr7jxoqM etc ... > You have a big fat nothing burger above. 'AI' hasn't changed anyone's life in an appreciable way. I don't agree, obviously. > The things you list above are ... very far from the singularity of mass unemployment that people seem to envision. Most of them actually seem to create more jobs. I said exactly that didn't I ?

scottlocklin 8y ago
A lot of things that people "show to be possible" really haven't been shown to be possible; autonomous vehicles being the most obvious elephant in the room. Your argument seems to be "we have gradient boosting and HMM and they are useful for things" which I certainly don't disagree with; I mostly make my living using such tools. What I do disagree with is the idea that it meaningfully increases human power over nature, or changes people's day to day lives. A list of things which meaningfully increased human power over nature: flight, radio, computers, networked computers, electrification, antibiotics, the microchip, nuclear power, the green revolution, steam engines; maybe even stuff like Pagerank/sparse SVD. The subject known as 'AI' seems to be down around ... I dunno, electric lawn mowers in its impact on human life. You can assert that the difference is gonna be real big one of these days; people made such assertions as far back as the 1960s, but so far, it totally hasn't made much of a difference. Yet your prediction, completely without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Well I've driven in a Waymo car, and I've driven around Mountain View on the street with Waymo cars. It's probably only fair to warn you that it'll be quite hard to convince me they don't really drive autonomously. > without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this? Waymo + Tesla + ... + http://mentalfloss.com/article/61541/most-common-job-each-state http://mentalfloss.com/article/61541/most-common-job-each-st... seems to me like asking for trouble. (Europe's map looks similar btw)
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    You realize Waymo uses remote pilots, right? https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ Disclosure; I attempted to patent this idea before they were public with it, because I know the autonomous claims are baloney, and there was an obvious way to look like it wasnt baloney. I also just spent two weeks driving an Audi A-8 around Germany; most advanced 'autonomous' technology there is in a production car supposedly.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      I would expect nothing less, actually. This seems a very reasonable to provide an "out" for the AI. Are you really going to assert that autonomous control doesn't exist unless there is no option at all for it to call for help ? Your link says it itself: "This is a backup system for moments when the car isn’t sure what to do, so it comes to a safe stop on its own and calls for help." The article likens it to elevators. Because elevators all of them "have operators". Really. Behind a phone line. Would you really argue elevators don't move by themselves at the direction of a customer, but only move at the oversight of a remote operator ? Because that's one of those things that's technically true ... and yet so wrong it's almost ridiculous. Now of course self-driving tech isn't quite up to elevator level of reliability yet. Also I'd like to point out that even under those circumstances, people would still lose their jobs. Because it'll allow 1000 trucks to be controlled by, first 200, then 100, then 10, then 1 drivers. Even if 80% lose their jobs, truck driver will stop being a significant percentage of employment, and if it was one company it is now the biggest employer in more than 70% of all US states. As in, I hear you, and very interesting article, but it doesn't seem to change anything in the discussion.

scottlocklin 8y ago

A lot of things that people "show to be possible" really haven't been shown to be possible; autonomous vehicles being the most obvious elephant in the room. Your argument seems to be "we have gradient boosting and HMM and they are useful for things" which I certainly don't disagree with; I mostly make my living using such tools. What I do disagree with is the idea that it meaningfully increases human power over nature, or changes people's day to day lives. A list of things which meaningfully increased human power over nature: flight, radio, computers, networked computers, electrification, antibiotics, the microchip, nuclear power, the green revolution, steam engines; maybe even stuff like Pagerank/sparse SVD. The subject known as 'AI' seems to be down around ... I dunno, electric lawn mowers in its impact on human life. You can assert that the difference is gonna be real big one of these days; people made such assertions as far back as the 1960s, but so far, it totally hasn't made much of a difference. Yet your prediction, completely without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this?

candiodari 8y ago
Well I've driven in a Waymo car, and I've driven around Mountain View on the street with Waymo cars. It's probably only fair to warn you that it'll be quite hard to convince me they don't really drive autonomously. > without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this? Waymo + Tesla + ... + http://mentalfloss.com/article/61541/most-common-job-each-state http://mentalfloss.com/article/61541/most-common-job-each-st... seems to me like asking for trouble. (Europe's map looks similar btw)
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  You realize Waymo uses remote pilots, right? https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ Disclosure; I attempted to patent this idea before they were public with it, because I know the autonomous claims are baloney, and there was an obvious way to look like it wasnt baloney. I also just spent two weeks driving an Audi A-8 around Germany; most advanced 'autonomous' technology there is in a production car supposedly.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    I would expect nothing less, actually. This seems a very reasonable to provide an "out" for the AI. Are you really going to assert that autonomous control doesn't exist unless there is no option at all for it to call for help ? Your link says it itself: "This is a backup system for moments when the car isn’t sure what to do, so it comes to a safe stop on its own and calls for help." The article likens it to elevators. Because elevators all of them "have operators". Really. Behind a phone line. Would you really argue elevators don't move by themselves at the direction of a customer, but only move at the oversight of a remote operator ? Because that's one of those things that's technically true ... and yet so wrong it's almost ridiculous. Now of course self-driving tech isn't quite up to elevator level of reliability yet. Also I'd like to point out that even under those circumstances, people would still lose their jobs. Because it'll allow 1000 trucks to be controlled by, first 200, then 100, then 10, then 1 drivers. Even if 80% lose their jobs, truck driver will stop being a significant percentage of employment, and if it was one company it is now the biggest employer in more than 70% of all US states. As in, I hear you, and very interesting article, but it doesn't seem to change anything in the discussion.