3 ms·
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 bas
by 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 agoWho 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 agoYes, 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 agoStagnant crap nobody wants?
- panarky 4y agoAI 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 agoCitation for your pancreatic cancer claim? I am skeptical, or perhaps we have different definitions of better.
- EGreg 4y agoThat’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 agoAny 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.