8 ms·

You might underestimate the speed and velocity of advancement in the field. A few years ago creating artificial data or images that are indistinguishable from r

by kerng 6y ago

You might underestimate the speed and velocity of advancement in the field. A few years ago creating artificial data or images that are indistinguishable from real data was impossible. Now machines generate information, like entire videos that are real but fake. This can, and has already (look at facebook and fake profiles), led to big problems and in a few years the world will change quite drastically because of further advances and automation. This can go in good and bad directions... I'm just worried that downplaying it will cause pivoting towards undesirable outcomes.

NalNezumi 6y ago
I don't think I underestimate the speed nor velocity of the advancement, just being realistic about the scope of the advancements. I follow conferences and read ML papers (DL & DL/ML application in Robotics) regularly so I think I have a some grasp on the advancement in the field. GAN sure have been a big step, and have found a great usage. (deepfake etc) but I'd say it is still highly overblown. Like GPT3 it will see wide adaptation enough to make visible improvement (and problems) in certain industries, just as better classifiers changed a lot. I also don't like the blanket term of "automation" because it is like AI: too vague and often used by someone who don't fully grasp HOW hard automation tasks are (and how the complexity scale and differs from the task ). Just as optimism in Self-driving car is now more on low-fire. The over-promise of ML is something akin to people expecting "it to just get better" similar to Moore's law. If you take a look at what direction the algorithms are improving, what incremental advancements are being made the scope of the speed and velocity become much more clear; and just because cars get faster, doesn't mean it will one day fly to space like a rocket. If we one day in short term future see great improvement, it will probably not be the ML improvements, but due external factors (hardware, network speed, etc)
- kerng 6y ago
  I don't think ML over promises anything, its just a new way to help create software to solve problems that can't really be solved with traditional programming.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
I appreciate your enthusiasm but we're still not there. The videos look almost perfect, with "almost" still oscillating around the uncanny valley. Self-driving cars are almost totally self-driving and are almost not killing people. GPT3 uses fluent English and can be used to generate almost meaningful content in most contexts. Speech recognition progressed enormously and can be used to transcribe most well-pronouncing native English speakers in favorable circumstances. It seems like we're slowly getting there, but the last mile is the hardest to finish. For many companies this is not a problem because they can afford not to care. When you operate at the scale of Google, you can not afford not to use some form of ML to detect abuse, and you don't care about false positives because they're meaningless at this scale - you just get a couple of grumpy folks complaining they lost their accounts. But when you do something more meaningful, for example translation, you can't depend on machine translation - you can very well use it for the first draft, but if you delivered it to your client in that form, you'd be laughed at and you'd quickly be out of business. So yes, great advancements, still far from being there.
- Veedrac 6y ago
  This is what I've started thinking of as the ‘pretty dumb for a human’ take on AI. If your requirement for believing something is on the path to AGI is for it to practically already be AGI, it's no longer predictively meaningful. This sort of argument suffices to dismiss, for example, the possibility that today's humans evolved from apes, or even that today's humans could have come from pre-language, pre-civilization humans.
  - username90 6y ago
    Problem is that the AI we have is nothing like biological intelligence. Our super computers can't even compete with the intelligence of an ant, how am I to believe that replicating human intelligence is around the corner or that we are even moving the right direction to get there?
    - Veedrac 6y ago
      > Our super computers can't even compete with the intelligence of an ant I don't see what might spur anyone to claim this. It's obviously ridiculous.

by kerng 6y ago

NalNezumi 6y ago

I don't think I underestimate the speed nor velocity of the advancement, just being realistic about the scope of the advancements. I follow conferences and read ML papers (DL & DL/ML application in Robotics) regularly so I think I have a some grasp on the advancement in the field. GAN sure have been a big step, and have found a great usage. (deepfake etc) but I'd say it is still highly overblown. Like GPT3 it will see wide adaptation enough to make visible improvement (and problems) in certain industries, just as better classifiers changed a lot. I also don't like the blanket term of "automation" because it is like AI: too vague and often used by someone who don't fully grasp HOW hard automation tasks are (and how the complexity scale and differs from the task ). Just as optimism in Self-driving car is now more on low-fire. The over-promise of ML is something akin to people expecting "it to just get better" similar to Moore's law. If you take a look at what direction the algorithms are improving, what incremental advancements are being made the scope of the speed and velocity become much more clear; and just because cars get faster, doesn't mean it will one day fly to space like a rocket. If we one day in short term future see great improvement, it will probably not be the ML improvements, but due external factors (hardware, network speed, etc)

kerng 6y ago
I don't think ML over promises anything, its just a new way to help create software to solve problems that can't really be solved with traditional programming.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

I appreciate your enthusiasm but we're still not there. The videos look almost perfect, with "almost" still oscillating around the uncanny valley. Self-driving cars are almost totally self-driving and are almost not killing people. GPT3 uses fluent English and can be used to generate almost meaningful content in most contexts. Speech recognition progressed enormously and can be used to transcribe most well-pronouncing native English speakers in favorable circumstances. It seems like we're slowly getting there, but the last mile is the hardest to finish. For many companies this is not a problem because they can afford not to care. When you operate at the scale of Google, you can not afford not to use some form of ML to detect abuse, and you don't care about false positives because they're meaningless at this scale - you just get a couple of grumpy folks complaining they lost their accounts. But when you do something more meaningful, for example translation, you can't depend on machine translation - you can very well use it for the first draft, but if you delivered it to your client in that form, you'd be laughed at and you'd quickly be out of business. So yes, great advancements, still far from being there.

Veedrac 6y ago
This is what I've started thinking of as the ‘pretty dumb for a human’ take on AI. If your requirement for believing something is on the path to AGI is for it to practically already be AGI, it's no longer predictively meaningful. This sort of argument suffices to dismiss, for example, the possibility that today's humans evolved from apes, or even that today's humans could have come from pre-language, pre-civilization humans.
- username90 6y ago
  Problem is that the AI we have is nothing like biological intelligence. Our super computers can't even compete with the intelligence of an ant, how am I to believe that replicating human intelligence is around the corner or that we are even moving the right direction to get there?
  - Veedrac 6y ago
    > Our super computers can't even compete with the intelligence of an ant I don't see what might spur anyone to claim this. It's obviously ridiculous.