4 ms·

It is overhyped because in the end it has failed to deliver the breakthrough promised years ago. Car drinking cars are a great example. The AI that has taken

by ipaddr 5y ago

It is overhyped because in the end it has failed to deliver the breakthrough promised years ago. Car drinking cars are a great example. The AI that has taken over google search has made a great product kinda of awful now. What breakthroughs are you referring to?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sanxiyn 5y ago
I mean, Zoom can change your background of video in real time, and people all over the world do so every day. This was an unimaginable breakthrough 10 years ago.
- gambiting 5y ago
  What does that have to do with AI though??
  - ianbutler 5y ago
    How do you think that's done?
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Definitely not with AI? I mean Photoshop could do that 10+ years ago without "machine learning" even being a thing people talked about.
      - ianbutler 5y ago
        And you'd be wrong. The key part here is "live in real time video" Photoshop definitely cannot do that, I know that for a fact. https://towardsdatascience.com/virtual-background-for-video-conferencing-using-machine-learning-dfba17d90aa9 https://towardsdatascience.com/virtual-background-for-video-... There's an example article on the subject.
        gambiting 5y ago
        I just don't see how that's AI , sorry. Machine learning to recognize a background isn't AI.
        ianbutler 5y ago
        ML is most certainly AI. I had a visceral feeling you'd respond with this. Sorry but what ever magic you have in your head isn't AI -- this is real AI and you're moving goal posts like alot of people tend to do.
        gambiting 5y ago
        You have single cell organisms which are able to sense their nearby surroundings and make a choice based on the input - they can differentiate food from other materials and know how to move towards it. They are a system which can process complex input and make a decision based on that input. Yet you wouldn't call a basic single cell organism intelligent in any way. The term usually used is that it's simply a biochemical reaction that makes them process the input and make a choice, but you wouldn't call it intelligence and in fact no biologist ever would. I feel the same principle should apply to software - yes, you've built a mathematical model which can take input and make a decision based on the internal algorithms, if you trained it to detect background in video then that's what it will do. But it's not intelligence. It's no different than the bacteria deciding what to eat because certain biological receptors were triggered. I think calling it intelligent is one of the biggest lies IT professionals tell themselves and others. That's not to say the technology isn't impressive - it certainly is. But it's not AI in my opinion.
      - ArnoVW 5y ago
        This is sort of the interesting thing with AI. It's a moving target. Every time when an AI problem gets cracked, it's "yea but that's not really AI, just a stupid hack". Take autonomous cars. Sure, Musk is over-hyping, but we are making progress. I imagine it will go something like: Step 1) support for drivers (anti sleep or colision).. done? Step 2) autonomous driving in one area, perfect conditions, using expensive sensors Step n) gradual iteration removes those qualifications one by one .. yes, it will take 10/20 years before cars can drive autonomously in chaotic conditions such as "centre of Paris in the rain". But at each of those steps value is created, and at each step people will say "yea but..".
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        Arguably most autonomous driving solutions can already perfectly emulate typical driving in Paris in the rain.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >This was an unimaginable breakthrough 10 years ago. We had real time green screens 10 years ago. I don't think it's that unimaginable.
ianbutler 5y ago
A. Most people still think Google search is good. B. Unless you work for Google specifically on that search team I'm going to say you don't know what you're talking about. So we can safely throw that point away. I've implemented a natural language search using bleeding edge work, the results I can assure you are impressive. Everything from route planning to spam filtering has seen major upgrades thanks to ML in the last 8 years. Someone mentioned the zoom backgrounds, besides that image generation and the field of image processing in general. Document classification, translation. Recommendations. Malware detection, code completion. I could go on. No one promised me AGI so idk what you're on about and that certainly wasn't the promise billed to me when things thawed out this time but the results have pretty undeniably changed a lot of tech we use.
- erwincoumans 5y ago
  One of Deepmind's goals is AGI, so it is tempting to evaluate their publications for progress towards AGI. Problem is, how do you evaluate progress towards AGI? https://deepmind.com/about https://deepmind.com/about "Our long term aim is to solve intelligence, developing more general and capable problem-solving systems, known as artificial general intelligence (AGI)."
  - ianbutler 5y ago
    AGI is a real problem but the proposed pace is marketing fluff -- on the ground they're just doing good work and moving our baselines incrementally. If a new technique for let's say document translation is 20% cheaper/easier to build and 15% more effective that is a breakthrough. It is not a glamorous world redefining breakthrough but progress is more often than not incremental. I'd say more so than the big eureka moments. Dipping into my own speculation, to your point about how to measure, between our (humanity's) superiority complex and with how we move the baselines right now I don't know if people will acknowledge AGI if and until it's far superior to us. If even an average adult level intelligence is produced I see a bunch of people just treating it poorly and telling the researchers that it's not good enough. Edit: And maybe I should amend my original statement to say I've never heard a researcher promise me about AGI. That said that statement from DeepMind doesn't really promise anything other than they're working towards it.
password321 5y ago
If we are going to start saying "but it hasn't achieved X yet when Y said it would" as a way to classify a field as overhyped then I don't know what even remains.

by ipaddr 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sanxiyn 5y ago

I mean, Zoom can change your background of video in real time, and people all over the world do so every day. This was an unimaginable breakthrough 10 years ago.

gambiting 5y ago
What does that have to do with AI though??
- ianbutler 5y ago
  How do you think that's done?
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Definitely not with AI? I mean Photoshop could do that 10+ years ago without "machine learning" even being a thing people talked about.
    - ianbutler 5y ago
      And you'd be wrong. The key part here is "live in real time video" Photoshop definitely cannot do that, I know that for a fact. https://towardsdatascience.com/virtual-background-for-video-conferencing-using-machine-learning-dfba17d90aa9 https://towardsdatascience.com/virtual-background-for-video-... There's an example article on the subject.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        I just don't see how that's AI , sorry. Machine learning to recognize a background isn't AI.
        ianbutler 5y ago
        ML is most certainly AI. I had a visceral feeling you'd respond with this. Sorry but what ever magic you have in your head isn't AI -- this is real AI and you're moving goal posts like alot of people tend to do.
        gambiting 5y ago
        You have single cell organisms which are able to sense their nearby surroundings and make a choice based on the input - they can differentiate food from other materials and know how to move towards it. They are a system which can process complex input and make a decision based on that input. Yet you wouldn't call a basic single cell organism intelligent in any way. The term usually used is that it's simply a biochemical reaction that makes them process the input and make a choice, but you wouldn't call it intelligence and in fact no biologist ever would. I feel the same principle should apply to software - yes, you've built a mathematical model which can take input and make a decision based on the internal algorithms, if you trained it to detect background in video then that's what it will do. But it's not intelligence. It's no different than the bacteria deciding what to eat because certain biological receptors were triggered. I think calling it intelligent is one of the biggest lies IT professionals tell themselves and others. That's not to say the technology isn't impressive - it certainly is. But it's not AI in my opinion.
    - ArnoVW 5y ago
      This is sort of the interesting thing with AI. It's a moving target. Every time when an AI problem gets cracked, it's "yea but that's not really AI, just a stupid hack". Take autonomous cars. Sure, Musk is over-hyping, but we are making progress. I imagine it will go something like: Step 1) support for drivers (anti sleep or colision).. done? Step 2) autonomous driving in one area, perfect conditions, using expensive sensors Step n) gradual iteration removes those qualifications one by one .. yes, it will take 10/20 years before cars can drive autonomously in chaotic conditions such as "centre of Paris in the rain". But at each of those steps value is created, and at each step people will say "yea but..".
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        Arguably most autonomous driving solutions can already perfectly emulate typical driving in Paris in the rain.
charcircuit 5y ago
>This was an unimaginable breakthrough 10 years ago. We had real time green screens 10 years ago. I don't think it's that unimaginable.

ianbutler 5y ago

A. Most people still think Google search is good. B. Unless you work for Google specifically on that search team I'm going to say you don't know what you're talking about. So we can safely throw that point away. I've implemented a natural language search using bleeding edge work, the results I can assure you are impressive. Everything from route planning to spam filtering has seen major upgrades thanks to ML in the last 8 years. Someone mentioned the zoom backgrounds, besides that image generation and the field of image processing in general. Document classification, translation. Recommendations. Malware detection, code completion. I could go on. No one promised me AGI so idk what you're on about and that certainly wasn't the promise billed to me when things thawed out this time but the results have pretty undeniably changed a lot of tech we use.

erwincoumans 5y ago
One of Deepmind's goals is AGI, so it is tempting to evaluate their publications for progress towards AGI. Problem is, how do you evaluate progress towards AGI? https://deepmind.com/about https://deepmind.com/about "Our long term aim is to solve intelligence, developing more general and capable problem-solving systems, known as artificial general intelligence (AGI)."
- ianbutler 5y ago
  AGI is a real problem but the proposed pace is marketing fluff -- on the ground they're just doing good work and moving our baselines incrementally. If a new technique for let's say document translation is 20% cheaper/easier to build and 15% more effective that is a breakthrough. It is not a glamorous world redefining breakthrough but progress is more often than not incremental. I'd say more so than the big eureka moments. Dipping into my own speculation, to your point about how to measure, between our (humanity's) superiority complex and with how we move the baselines right now I don't know if people will acknowledge AGI if and until it's far superior to us. If even an average adult level intelligence is produced I see a bunch of people just treating it poorly and telling the researchers that it's not good enough. Edit: And maybe I should amend my original statement to say I've never heard a researcher promise me about AGI. That said that statement from DeepMind doesn't really promise anything other than they're working towards it.

password321 5y ago

If we are going to start saying "but it hasn't achieved X yet when Y said it would" as a way to classify a field as overhyped then I don't know what even remains.