5 ms·

He was making a counter argument. Parent used all the same logic to posit 'ai don't make discoveries'. If those are reasons ai don't make discoveries, and they

He was making a counter argument. Parent used all the same logic to posit 'ai don't make discoveries'. If those are reasons ai don't make discoveries, and they all apply to humans as well, then it must be that humans also don't make discoveries. This is obviously false, which refutes the parent's point.

coding123 4y ago
Multiple places to refute the core logic: The asteroid has to be checked by a human (or AI) part is incorrect because a computer AI that's checking just images or data can't (yet) call a team of astronomers to focus telescopes somewhere and double check it. That part would almost nearly require general AI. Yes, someone could write a single-use software that tells a bunch of astronomers to check something that AI has found, but that's NOT "the AI" doing that. Humans don't have "training data" they have something else. I don't think "training data" and that "something else" is the same (yet).
- albertzeyer 4y ago
  You would also not trust the result of a single human on the asteroid but it would be double checked by someone else. That's the point. What do humans get instead of training data? What do you mean by "something else", and why can't some artificial neural network (ANN) not have the same? Maybe you mean it does not get supervised labeled data? But unsupervised data is also just training data, and in fact ANNs are very successful in also using such unsupervised training data. So I really do not see the distinction between AI and human intelligence. And the argument why an AI can't make a discovery and a human can.
  - coding123 4y ago
    If I were to call information we use (as humans) to become an adult "training data" it would be seeing the world, eating baby food, getting spanked, falling in love, etc... is, in my opinion, something else. It's not training data. It's a completely different kind of conditioning. I think for us to call "training data" and the complete social evolution of a single human mind the same thing is ridiculous - AT THIS TIME. I'm not saying NNs (or some future AI tech) is NOT capable of reaching this status - but that's General AI. I haven't been reached out by OpenAI 5 in Gmail saying hey do you want to play a game of Dota 2 with me? It hasn't called me on the phone wanting to hang out. It's completely different. When those things happen we can talk but the original poster and myself are predicating this on "CURRENT AI" not theoretical AI.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  So, you think AI can't make discoveries because it can't take initiative?
  - coding123 4y ago
    I think it's absolutely helpful in making it so that researchers can make discoveries by using AI.

coding123 4y ago

Multiple places to refute the core logic: The asteroid has to be checked by a human (or AI) part is incorrect because a computer AI that's checking just images or data can't (yet) call a team of astronomers to focus telescopes somewhere and double check it. That part would almost nearly require general AI. Yes, someone could write a single-use software that tells a bunch of astronomers to check something that AI has found, but that's NOT "the AI" doing that. Humans don't have "training data" they have something else. I don't think "training data" and that "something else" is the same (yet).

albertzeyer 4y ago
You would also not trust the result of a single human on the asteroid but it would be double checked by someone else. That's the point. What do humans get instead of training data? What do you mean by "something else", and why can't some artificial neural network (ANN) not have the same? Maybe you mean it does not get supervised labeled data? But unsupervised data is also just training data, and in fact ANNs are very successful in also using such unsupervised training data. So I really do not see the distinction between AI and human intelligence. And the argument why an AI can't make a discovery and a human can.
- coding123 4y ago
  If I were to call information we use (as humans) to become an adult "training data" it would be seeing the world, eating baby food, getting spanked, falling in love, etc... is, in my opinion, something else. It's not training data. It's a completely different kind of conditioning. I think for us to call "training data" and the complete social evolution of a single human mind the same thing is ridiculous - AT THIS TIME. I'm not saying NNs (or some future AI tech) is NOT capable of reaching this status - but that's General AI. I haven't been reached out by OpenAI 5 in Gmail saying hey do you want to play a game of Dota 2 with me? It hasn't called me on the phone wanting to hang out. It's completely different. When those things happen we can talk but the original poster and myself are predicating this on "CURRENT AI" not theoretical AI.
BobbyJo 4y ago
So, you think AI can't make discoveries because it can't take initiative?
- coding123 4y ago
  I think it's absolutely helpful in making it so that researchers can make discoveries by using AI.