3 ms·
You'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 accu
by romesc 3y ago
You'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.