5 ms·

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information return

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

chrisshroba 4y ago
If an AI can be trained on the internet, it can be trained on a textbook or lecture notes. I think it’s shortsighted to insist that AI won’t replace experts based on the training sets that AIs are currently being trained on.
- sublinear 4y ago
  Who writes the books and lectures? This is literally chicken and egg. Can't have eggs without chickens. Can't have chickens without eggs. This is not an oversimplification.
  - Teever 4y ago
    Yes, now you're getting it. What happens when the AI can write itself? What happens when it can design its own hardware? And assemble it? What have we created when it is fully capable of self replication?
    - sublinear 4y ago
      Stagnant crap nobody wants?
      - panarky 4y ago
        AI can detect pancreatic cancer better than the best radiologists. The belief that machine learning cannot surpass human intelligence is contrary to the evidence.
        oaktrout 4y ago
        Citation for your pancreatic cancer claim? I am skeptical, or perhaps we have different definitions of better.
- EGreg 4y ago
  That’s what Wall street said about expert traders. And then replaced them all with bots and gave the capital to the bots to be traded. I remember when Garry Kasparov insisted that centaurs -- computer+human — do better than just a computer or just a human. He held out longer than most in this belief. But seriously… can you name a field where computers and bots can NEVER beat humans?
  - sublinear 4y ago
    Any topic where being an expert is not mere memorization or imitation without comprehension, and discovering new facts is not just relentlessly churning through a rule set and producing what was already self-evident. I don't disagree whether computers are good at computation. That's what they're for. I disagree that AI can replace experts because expertise is a moving target. Where AI approximates a response given at some point in time or within a range of time written by a crowd of people who are not necessarily experts, experts must inevitably contradict themselves on something and update their theories. AI as currently implemented will always lag behind human experts. In other words, do you seriously believe that an AI trained on scientific publications from the middle ages would eventually rediscover what we know now and beyond? I think it would be stuck forever hallucinating recipes to turn lead into gold.
lostoldsession 4y ago
>AI will never replace experts Just like it will never beat a top ranked GO player.
- sublinear 4y ago
  Go has static rules that can be mastered and a finite number of games possible. Expertise is always evolving.
  - fooker 4y ago
    > a finite number of games possible. Effectively infinite with modern hardware. AI did not solve Go by making an effort to explore the state space. That's what's amazing about it.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    There are vastly more possible games than atoms in the observable universe. The fact that it is finite is irrelevant.
t0bia_s 4y ago
> The internet was never a good source of expertise. Agree, but world listen internet "experts". A lot.
sebzim4500 4y ago
What does 'never' mean here. Do you literally mean that it can't happen even if human society progresses for another millenia? Or just that it won't happen in your career. The latter is somewhat plausible to me, but the former is only happening if there is a civilization ending catastrophe.
a257 4y ago
For this to remain true for the indefinite future we must assume that strong AI is strictly impossible. Our scientific knowledge today does not suggest that this is the case.
robotresearcher 4y ago
It already has in several useful, practical ways. Experts used to evaluate your credit application. Experts would adjust depth of field in portrait photography, and bracketed exposure in HDR photography. Experts would beat you at chess. AI now does the majority of instances of these things and many more. Not every instance, so you can say that experts have not been completely replaced, but they have been substantially replaced. As for ‘can only interpolate a response from internet sources’, first, there’s no requirement that training data comes from the internet, and second, if the AI has learned the correct function, ‘interpolation’ is not a criticism.

chrisshroba 4y ago

If an AI can be trained on the internet, it can be trained on a textbook or lecture notes. I think it’s shortsighted to insist that AI won’t replace experts based on the training sets that AIs are currently being trained on.

sublinear 4y ago
Who writes the books and lectures? This is literally chicken and egg. Can't have eggs without chickens. Can't have chickens without eggs. This is not an oversimplification.
- Teever 4y ago
  Yes, now you're getting it. What happens when the AI can write itself? What happens when it can design its own hardware? And assemble it? What have we created when it is fully capable of self replication?
  - sublinear 4y ago
    Stagnant crap nobody wants?
    - panarky 4y ago
      AI can detect pancreatic cancer better than the best radiologists. The belief that machine learning cannot surpass human intelligence is contrary to the evidence.
      - oaktrout 4y ago
        Citation for your pancreatic cancer claim? I am skeptical, or perhaps we have different definitions of better.
EGreg 4y ago
That’s what Wall street said about expert traders. And then replaced them all with bots and gave the capital to the bots to be traded. I remember when Garry Kasparov insisted that centaurs -- computer+human — do better than just a computer or just a human. He held out longer than most in this belief. But seriously… can you name a field where computers and bots can NEVER beat humans?
- sublinear 4y ago
  Any topic where being an expert is not mere memorization or imitation without comprehension, and discovering new facts is not just relentlessly churning through a rule set and producing what was already self-evident. I don't disagree whether computers are good at computation. That's what they're for. I disagree that AI can replace experts because expertise is a moving target. Where AI approximates a response given at some point in time or within a range of time written by a crowd of people who are not necessarily experts, experts must inevitably contradict themselves on something and update their theories. AI as currently implemented will always lag behind human experts. In other words, do you seriously believe that an AI trained on scientific publications from the middle ages would eventually rediscover what we know now and beyond? I think it would be stuck forever hallucinating recipes to turn lead into gold.

lostoldsession 4y ago

>AI will never replace experts Just like it will never beat a top ranked GO player.

sublinear 4y ago
Go has static rules that can be mastered and a finite number of games possible. Expertise is always evolving.
- fooker 4y ago
  > a finite number of games possible. Effectively infinite with modern hardware. AI did not solve Go by making an effort to explore the state space. That's what's amazing about it.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  There are vastly more possible games than atoms in the observable universe. The fact that it is finite is irrelevant.

t0bia_s 4y ago

> The internet was never a good source of expertise. Agree, but world listen internet "experts". A lot.

sebzim4500 4y ago

What does 'never' mean here. Do you literally mean that it can't happen even if human society progresses for another millenia? Or just that it won't happen in your career. The latter is somewhat plausible to me, but the former is only happening if there is a civilization ending catastrophe.

a257 4y ago

For this to remain true for the indefinite future we must assume that strong AI is strictly impossible. Our scientific knowledge today does not suggest that this is the case.

robotresearcher 4y ago

It already has in several useful, practical ways. Experts used to evaluate your credit application. Experts would adjust depth of field in portrait photography, and bracketed exposure in HDR photography. Experts would beat you at chess. AI now does the majority of instances of these things and many more. Not every instance, so you can say that experts have not been completely replaced, but they have been substantially replaced. As for ‘can only interpolate a response from internet sources’, first, there’s no requirement that training data comes from the internet, and second, if the AI has learned the correct function, ‘interpolation’ is not a criticism.