4 ms·

How many other -isms and -ists is it inured against? So you want an AI but it has to be (for want of a better notion) "politically correct". So it isn't an AI

How many other -isms and -ists is it inured against? So you want an AI but it has to be (for want of a better notion) "politically correct". So it isn't an AI - its a program and a model with parameters and inclusions and exclusions that are defined beforehand. An AI would go beyond its programming in some indefinable way. This won't and so it isn't. There are no shortcuts. Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this, despite being humans themselves and often parents too. Twiddle your algorithms and twaddle your papers but intelligence is hard fought and hard won. For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured?

ordu 4y ago
> For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when Bine created the first IQ test, and it never ended since. The craze at some point came to a "intelligence is what IQ test measures". But thankfully scientists mostly rejected this novel idea. Turing's test is on the same quest, and it seems to me that people will reject the test as irrelevant if computer programs will master it better than people. It seems impossible to define intelligence. Oh, you can say "I think, therefore I'm intelligent". But it does not help much to create a definition of an intelligence, because what you see in your mind is a result of thinking, the process itself is hidden from you. It is a black box for you. Like you vision: it took computer scientists half a century to reverse-engineer human vision exactly because it is a black box for us. > Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this Because Comp Sci is unencumbered by limitations of biological parents. They can try highly experimental approach and then just `rm` the result from a storage. They would be trying electical shocks or public decapitation of randomly selected models, if it made any sense.
runarberg 4y ago
If you think about it in terms of what it really is—a powerful statistical model—then it makes much better sense. A statistical model will always reflect the data that is input and the parameters used to adjust it. If you want a racist AI you adjust the paramaters in that way instead, training it on racist input and rewarding it when it outputs racism. In fact that is kind of what happened with IQ in the first place, people adjusted the parameters in factor analysis (which IMO is really AI of the 20th century; as the most powerful statistical tool of the period) in such a way as to give one group of people a favorable score in a new metric they called general intelligence fed it with biased data, and claimed that the higher scoring group was superior based on this model. The I in AI is really overblown (as is the I in IQ for that matter).

ordu 4y ago

> For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when Bine created the first IQ test, and it never ended since. The craze at some point came to a "intelligence is what IQ test measures". But thankfully scientists mostly rejected this novel idea. Turing's test is on the same quest, and it seems to me that people will reject the test as irrelevant if computer programs will master it better than people. It seems impossible to define intelligence. Oh, you can say "I think, therefore I'm intelligent". But it does not help much to create a definition of an intelligence, because what you see in your mind is a result of thinking, the process itself is hidden from you. It is a black box for you. Like you vision: it took computer scientists half a century to reverse-engineer human vision exactly because it is a black box for us. > Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this Because Comp Sci is unencumbered by limitations of biological parents. They can try highly experimental approach and then just `rm` the result from a storage. They would be trying electical shocks or public decapitation of randomly selected models, if it made any sense.

runarberg 4y ago

If you think about it in terms of what it really is—a powerful statistical model—then it makes much better sense. A statistical model will always reflect the data that is input and the parameters used to adjust it. If you want a racist AI you adjust the paramaters in that way instead, training it on racist input and rewarding it when it outputs racism. In fact that is kind of what happened with IQ in the first place, people adjusted the parameters in factor analysis (which IMO is really AI of the 20th century; as the most powerful statistical tool of the period) in such a way as to give one group of people a favorable score in a new metric they called general intelligence fed it with biased data, and claimed that the higher scoring group was superior based on this model. The I in AI is really overblown (as is the I in IQ for that matter).