4 ms·

I’m not sure that ML’s success in AlphaGo generalizes well. For example, Transformer architectures may be able to generate seemingly realistic text, but after

by jsinai 7y ago

I’m not sure that ML’s success in AlphaGo generalizes well. For example, Transformer architectures may be able to generate seemingly realistic text, but after a couple of paragraphs a human can pick out the incoherence. Furthermore ML still struggles with out of distribution (ood) samples which humans are able to navigate easily. > ... but computers are now on the same threshold as humans This parity is still extremely limited and far from general. Computers were developed in the first place to handle fast computation with ease. What we are seeing with ML is an extension of that computation by encoding complex information (such as images) extremely well. This is still in the same computation plane as calculators (performing operations on floats and integers), but forgive my pun, only deeper. Human cognition is much more than computation. What we have today with machine learning is still very much computation.

taneq 7y ago
> Human cognition is much more than computation. Are we sure? And don’t say “computers can’t appreciate a sunset” or any begged questions like that.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  We're not sure, but it's a hypothesis that's still a long way from having solid evidential support. And there's no begged question about appreciated sunsets. The link between emotional and aesthetic perceptions is one of the key problem areas. Because aesthetic perception includes immediate sense data, but also links it with cultural contexts, personal memories, and sometimes a degree of artistic improvisation to communicate all of the related experiences, memories, and associations. It's precisely the difference between recognising a sunset with an image classifier and experiencing it with (say) another human that is far beyond current systems.
- jsinai 7y ago
  Precisely. +1 to TheOtherHobbes There is so much to human cognition that researchers haven’t or have been unable to address in AI. We can tell from our memories that when we experience something, it is not simply raw perception. In fact our System 1 minds are filtering out most of our sensory input so that even if two people are watching the same sunset, they’ll notice it differently. And on top of that, our memories are infused with so many other details that are not sensory input but artefacts from our lived experiences, personalities and cultural heritage. So that now even if two people are noticing similar things, they’ll still experience the sunset differently. And next time you are looking at a sunset, try to gather of all your thoughts and explain precisely how you are experiencing it. That is hard. So yes even a simple begged question like that shows the differences between human and computer cognition enough.

by jsinai 7y ago

taneq 7y ago

> Human cognition is much more than computation. Are we sure? And don’t say “computers can’t appreciate a sunset” or any begged questions like that.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
We're not sure, but it's a hypothesis that's still a long way from having solid evidential support. And there's no begged question about appreciated sunsets. The link between emotional and aesthetic perceptions is one of the key problem areas. Because aesthetic perception includes immediate sense data, but also links it with cultural contexts, personal memories, and sometimes a degree of artistic improvisation to communicate all of the related experiences, memories, and associations. It's precisely the difference between recognising a sunset with an image classifier and experiencing it with (say) another human that is far beyond current systems.
jsinai 7y ago
Precisely. +1 to TheOtherHobbes There is so much to human cognition that researchers haven’t or have been unable to address in AI. We can tell from our memories that when we experience something, it is not simply raw perception. In fact our System 1 minds are filtering out most of our sensory input so that even if two people are watching the same sunset, they’ll notice it differently. And on top of that, our memories are infused with so many other details that are not sensory input but artefacts from our lived experiences, personalities and cultural heritage. So that now even if two people are noticing similar things, they’ll still experience the sunset differently. And next time you are looking at a sunset, try to gather of all your thoughts and explain precisely how you are experiencing it. That is hard. So yes even a simple begged question like that shows the differences between human and computer cognition enough.