4 ms·

This is one of those weird articles where the author's intent becomes clearer the moment you replace "AI" with "capitalism". Anthropomorphizing technology goes

This is one of those weird articles where the author's intent becomes clearer the moment you replace "AI" with "capitalism". Anthropomorphizing technology goes well beyond AI and has been a thing pretty much ever since we've had gizmos. When we talk about a car or a fridge or a calculator that we own, we don't talk about the 300+ people that were complicit in its design and production, so I'm not sure how this has got anything to do with AI specifically. When you buy groceries from your supermarket, are you thankful to every single person it took to get them there? It's also strange how the article references GPT-3, and in the same breath talks about how there's a need to provide "actively engaged" and "high-quality" training data, even tho GPT-3 was a success specifically because it relied on neither.

visarga 6y ago
GPT-3 training data was 'actively engaged', it just wasn't supervised (labelled by hand).
- wrinkl3 6y ago
  I have no clue what "actively engaged" data actually means, since the author doesn't provide any links to the studies asserting its superiority. GPT-3 was trained on 45TB of text, little of which was written with AI training in mind.
randcraw 6y ago
I think “actively engaged” here means “curated”, where a human had to provide labels or guidance. Obviously the rise of big data and deep models that can induce probabilities is the source of pretty much all advancement in AI since heavy reliance on curation and logic were abandoned. As such, AI really is as much a technology now as it has ever been. It seems that the central revelation in the field since the demise of symbolic AI (aka GOFAI) has been that so much useful pattern matching can be achieved by 1) the inducing of sufficient probability from large data to enable high levels of (narrow) intelligent behavior and 2) doing it using so little human curation. Perhaps the author is suggesting that recent advances in AI are not really based in intelligence or cognition, and thus is only a trivially small subset of the greater endeavor of building machines that can think. If so, then the misnomer she objects to isn't “AI”, it's “intelligence”.

visarga 6y ago

GPT-3 training data was 'actively engaged', it just wasn't supervised (labelled by hand).

wrinkl3 6y ago
I have no clue what "actively engaged" data actually means, since the author doesn't provide any links to the studies asserting its superiority. GPT-3 was trained on 45TB of text, little of which was written with AI training in mind.

randcraw 6y ago

I think “actively engaged” here means “curated”, where a human had to provide labels or guidance. Obviously the rise of big data and deep models that can induce probabilities is the source of pretty much all advancement in AI since heavy reliance on curation and logic were abandoned. As such, AI really is as much a technology now as it has ever been. It seems that the central revelation in the field since the demise of symbolic AI (aka GOFAI) has been that so much useful pattern matching can be achieved by 1) the inducing of sufficient probability from large data to enable high levels of (narrow) intelligent behavior and 2) doing it using so little human curation. Perhaps the author is suggesting that recent advances in AI are not really based in intelligence or cognition, and thus is only a trivially small subset of the greater endeavor of building machines that can think. If so, then the misnomer she objects to isn't “AI”, it's “intelligence”.