4 ms·
Yeah this is a great example of what’s wrong with all our robots: their perception is garbage. Reasoning is actually pretty good now. An AI can compose a sonne
by AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Yeah this is a great example of what’s wrong with all our robots: their perception is garbage.
Reasoning is actually pretty good now. An AI can compose a sonnet on electron degeneracy pressure no-problem but ask it where the red ball is - and really inspect its localization of that red ball and it’s way off. Orders of magnitude of imprecision.
A modern AI can reason through the trolley problem and millions of variants. But it can’t see the person on the track with very high confidence, or be sure that the trolley is going to hit the person or not.
- romesc 3y agoYou're right about AI capabilities being much better in the "ungrounded" realm (like writing sonnets), but I would revise the statement a little to be more accurate. AI systems are quite good at perception in a traditional sense (e.g. determining a red ball is in the sensor receptive field), but once actual cognition about how the red ball relates to the world around it becomes important, current approaches are limited. I would argue that the first wave of perception is solved much more completely than the ability to reason about complex interactions of objects grounded in the physical world. Disclaimer: I am a robotics research scientist
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI think it matters how accurate something should be before we consider it "good". For many applications, a 99% success rate is unusably bad. A self driving car that recognizes 99% of red lights or stop signs is probably a criminal liability. A red ball detector that operates at 60hz with a 99.9% accuracy will make an error on average once every 11.5 seconds. I think the issue is not so much the interactions of objects and the world but rather we're just wildly off-base regarding the base performance needed.