4 ms·

It's not clear to me how this "field" of study is any different from existing academic analyses of automation or computing. AI doesn't change what computers do

It's not clear to me how this "field" of study is any different from existing academic analyses of automation or computing. AI doesn't change what computers do; it affects only how it's done. The problems inherent in automation are as old as windmills, falling water, and certainly electricity. Sure, a few modern fields are affected more than others, but improving voice recognition or visual object identification component by 20% doesn't fundamentally change the system using such code to a degree that it warrants a new academic discipline of study. A new legal field of study on automation makes more sense to me. Algorithmic bias, product or service liability, baseline accountability, the standards of due diligence and safety -- these are rising concerns exacerbated by the recent increase in automation, AI-based or not. But these problems are hardly unique to AI any more than the misdirection of elections was unique to manipulation of digital social media. I'm also doubtful that meaningful solutions to byproducts of automation by corporations and nations can be meaningfully addressed by a bunch of academic computer scientists.

fromthestart 8y ago
>AI doesn't change what computers do, if affects only how it's done. Except AI is very much changing how things are done as well as what computers do. Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles, these are all novel applications for machines which carry significant real world risks to life and property. Moreover, AI in it's current state is a complex black box with unpredictable outputs for given inputs, which may be chaotic - see, for example, adversarial attacks. If we want a better handle on, say, regularizing outputs in a predictable way, or at least a clearer window into the occluded complexity of neural network decision making, a whole new field may very well be warranted. There's a reason we are calling these program outputs behaviors now; it's a new type of loosely -deterministic computing until we develop a deeper understanding which will not be trivial.
- drb91 8y ago
  > Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.
  - dictum 8y ago
    Effective policymaking takes into account both the precise technical terminology and the real-world usage of a concept. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to tackle any issue for which popular usage doesn't take into account technical nuance, leaving those fields in a lawless limbo.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Sure, just make it illegal to say you're selling AI technology. Problem solved. I'm absolutely fine with the use of the term in the context of regulating its abuse. Real-world usage would imply people use it in a meaningful way. I have yet to see any evidence of this.
  - IanCal 8y ago
    These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
    - drb91 8y ago
      > There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years? That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).
      - IanCal 8y ago
        People absolutely use it usefully, that it can be used as marketing fluff is a far more recent thing. If it's never been used usefully and isn't now, there's no point arguing about it because that war has been lost and if it has been used usefully redefining it makes no sense. Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion so I'll leave it here. I just wish AI topics didn't always have someone say it wasn't "real AI".
        8y ago
jononor 8y ago
When electricity first came about, it also 'just changed how things were done', a better way to do what we did with diesel and lamp-oil. But the consequences to society over time were much bigger than just more light...

fromthestart 8y ago

>AI doesn't change what computers do, if affects only how it's done. Except AI is very much changing how things are done as well as what computers do. Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles, these are all novel applications for machines which carry significant real world risks to life and property. Moreover, AI in it's current state is a complex black box with unpredictable outputs for given inputs, which may be chaotic - see, for example, adversarial attacks. If we want a better handle on, say, regularizing outputs in a predictable way, or at least a clearer window into the occluded complexity of neural network decision making, a whole new field may very well be warranted. There's a reason we are calling these program outputs behaviors now; it's a new type of loosely -deterministic computing until we develop a deeper understanding which will not be trivial.

drb91 8y ago
> Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.
- dictum 8y ago
  Effective policymaking takes into account both the precise technical terminology and the real-world usage of a concept. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to tackle any issue for which popular usage doesn't take into account technical nuance, leaving those fields in a lawless limbo.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Sure, just make it illegal to say you're selling AI technology. Problem solved. I'm absolutely fine with the use of the term in the context of regulating its abuse. Real-world usage would imply people use it in a meaningful way. I have yet to see any evidence of this.
- IanCal 8y ago
  These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
  - drb91 8y ago
    > There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years? That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).
    - IanCal 8y ago
      People absolutely use it usefully, that it can be used as marketing fluff is a far more recent thing. If it's never been used usefully and isn't now, there's no point arguing about it because that war has been lost and if it has been used usefully redefining it makes no sense. Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion so I'll leave it here. I just wish AI topics didn't always have someone say it wasn't "real AI".
      - 8y ago

jononor 8y ago

When electricity first came about, it also 'just changed how things were done', a better way to do what we did with diesel and lamp-oil. But the consequences to society over time were much bigger than just more light...