3 ms·

> it's like saying that machines can never be stronger than humans because they're built by humans. Did you even read the article? “This idea of surpassing hu

by devb 4y ago

> it's like saying that machines can never be stronger than humans because they're built by humans. Did you even read the article? “This idea of surpassing human ability is silly because it’s made of human abilities.” He says comparing ourselves with AI is the equivalent of comparing ourselves with a car. “It’s like saying a car can go faster than a human runner. Of course it can, and yet we don’t say that the car has become a better runner.”

quantified 4y ago
We put far too great an emphasis on the human specifics of an activity. For most utilizations of running (delivering goods or information, hunting prey, etc.) the car, or helicopter, or airplane far exceed the human runner. This is poetic nonsense like "speed of thought". When Boston Robotics gets a robotic runner that sprints faster than a human, then what? The ML systems are not made of human abilities. They are made of software processes. Jared is a smart and informed guy but that sentence is just nonsensical.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > When Boston Robotics gets a robotic runner that sprints faster than a human, then what? It enters the Olympics and automates away all sprinters? Or it becomes self-aware and decides to eat all the humans? Or more likely, it gets sold to the military so they can have one more kind of drone that runs on land instead of flies through the air.
  - quantified 4y ago
    Right, sorry, I was directing my question at the "does it surpass human runners" train of thought. Obviously it won't feel a pounding heart, or a thrill of victory if it wins a race, or die of hypernatrimia during a marathon, so it won't surpass our specific cares. Not sure those make a significant difference in the arc of development. It absolutely goes to the military with built-in weapons.
hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
>Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nohaydeprobleme 4y ago
Jaron Lanier's point is much more interesting point in this context—though I felt that it was overall a brief quote near the introduction to capture attention, than the main argument of the article. In fuller context, Lanier argues that software using AI won't make human sport or competition useless, because it will use different processes to achieve the same result—the same way that competitive running (or top-level chess, Go, or certain video games) will still happen, even if human inventions can beat the best human at the task. For all these tasks, the software will take a different process for doing well at the task (e.g. a car doesn't "run," and a chess engine "thinks" differently than a human). In these activities, the process matters. A different interpretation of the argument is then a bit more interesting. If Lanier is also saying that software using AI won't be better than humans at activities outside of competitions, I would disagree—though to be fair, I don't think this is his argument. For lots of work, the result matters more than the process. If someone wants to make a funny poem as a one-off joke in a story, the result may matter more than the process of production. And if a worker wants to summarize lots of short texts where speed is the most important factor, the result may also matter more than the process. In the same sense, it's still true that a car is usually better at letting humans travel over long distances for work than running, because the result matters more than the process.

by devb 4y ago

quantified 4y ago

We put far too great an emphasis on the human specifics of an activity. For most utilizations of running (delivering goods or information, hunting prey, etc.) the car, or helicopter, or airplane far exceed the human runner. This is poetic nonsense like "speed of thought". When Boston Robotics gets a robotic runner that sprints faster than a human, then what? The ML systems are not made of human abilities. They are made of software processes. Jared is a smart and informed guy but that sentence is just nonsensical.

goatlover 4y ago
> When Boston Robotics gets a robotic runner that sprints faster than a human, then what? It enters the Olympics and automates away all sprinters? Or it becomes self-aware and decides to eat all the humans? Or more likely, it gets sold to the military so they can have one more kind of drone that runs on land instead of flies through the air.
- quantified 4y ago
  Right, sorry, I was directing my question at the "does it surpass human runners" train of thought. Obviously it won't feel a pounding heart, or a thrill of victory if it wins a race, or die of hypernatrimia during a marathon, so it won't surpass our specific cares. Not sure those make a significant difference in the arc of development. It absolutely goes to the military with built-in weapons.

hoppyhoppy2 4y ago

>Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nohaydeprobleme 4y ago

Jaron Lanier's point is much more interesting point in this context—though I felt that it was overall a brief quote near the introduction to capture attention, than the main argument of the article. In fuller context, Lanier argues that software using AI won't make human sport or competition useless, because it will use different processes to achieve the same result—the same way that competitive running (or top-level chess, Go, or certain video games) will still happen, even if human inventions can beat the best human at the task. For all these tasks, the software will take a different process for doing well at the task (e.g. a car doesn't "run," and a chess engine "thinks" differently than a human). In these activities, the process matters. A different interpretation of the argument is then a bit more interesting. If Lanier is also saying that software using AI won't be better than humans at activities outside of competitions, I would disagree—though to be fair, I don't think this is his argument. For lots of work, the result matters more than the process. If someone wants to make a funny poem as a one-off joke in a story, the result may matter more than the process of production. And if a worker wants to summarize lots of short texts where speed is the most important factor, the result may also matter more than the process. In the same sense, it's still true that a car is usually better at letting humans travel over long distances for work than running, because the result matters more than the process.