5 ms·
My north star for the future of AI
- oska 3y agohttps://archive.li/nAsYM https://archive.li/nAsYM
- linusg789 3y agohttps://ghostarchive.org/archive/KnwxS https://ghostarchive.org/archive/KnwxS
- dirtyhippiefree 3y ago“ Whatever academics like me thought artificial intelligence was, or what it might become, one thing is now undeniable: It is no longer ours to control.” I have no doubt Sam Altman thought he was in control until he was told to go…by humans… Machines think faster than humans. Simple math…
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- __loam 3y agoMachines don't think. They do what they're told, nothing more. "Simple man" as they say.
- janalsncm 3y agoSure, but anyone who’s experienced a runtime error knows that what we want and what they’re told can be two different things. For a real world example of automated systems gone wrong check out the flash crash of 2010: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash To be clear I don’t think the risk is “AI gone rogue” it’s either corporations gone rogue or powerful automated systems glitching and causing chaos.
- peddling-brink 3y agoNeither do we. We just do what our neurons tell us to do.
- __loam 3y agoI'm getting pretty tired of the anti-human bullshit on this site.
- TriNetra 3y agoNO. we repeatedly deny what our neurons demand, E.G. lust, violence etc. Granted, we end up falling for these impulses many a times, but we also deny them many times. The former occurs more with those who identify themselves with their impulses (desires); as one evolves one's mind and intelligence, one is able to resist and have a much better control on these impulses. AI as it stands only represents human brain; the mind is much bigger than brain with multitude of functions and don't get me started on consciousness, which is the chief ruler of all and beyond mind, space and time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S57DSgRWBRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S57DSgRWBRM
- peddling-brink 3y agoYes, but who's telling those neurons NO? Other neurons. Granted, there's much more at play than _just_ neurons.
- hurryer 3y agoChemistry doesn't think either, it just reacts according to the formulas.
- comment_ran 3y agoI'm listening to her book The worlds i see: curiosity, exploration, and discovery at the dawn of ai. So right now, I'm just in the middle. She's Starting from physics, but eventually found something interesting internal world for a person, which lead to the road to artificial intelligence. I have pretty much the same experience like her. Starting young, falling in love with physics as I get older. I also noticed a huge motivation to learn Myself. The thing in my head, how it works, how it behaves, how I react to certain external world stimulus. Yeah I'm still in the process to to her book and try to understanding of this new technology and immerse myself in this new things and try to do some interesting stuff.
- m3kw9 3y agoNice idea, where is the execution?
- windwindow 3y ago+1. Would love to see some more concrete applications, but these are great concepts.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bushbaba 3y agoFei-Fei Li did not do an amazing job while leading Google Cloud’s AI/ML efforts. Why should she be a speaking authority here.
- kaizoku20 3y agoSource?
- yellow_postit 3y agoThe lack of any projects with meaningful tractions?
- jdeaton 3y agoWhy should ad hominem argument be taken seriously here
- kccqzy 3y agoTo be frank the essay has the tone of a personal reflection, not anything intended to be authoritative.
- robwwilliams 3y agoBeautifully written, heart-and-mind felt, but already reads like a belated plea to bring humanity to computer science, AI research, and big business. All when liberal art universities are losing their liberal arts. One cannot really disagree (I cannot anyway), but what pragmatic actions can one take—-especially after moving from Stanford to Google. Yes, Li has been in and fed the belly of the beast. Now what?
- oska 3y ago> especially after moving from Stanford to Google I understand that she only worked at Google during a sabbatical from Stanford (Jan '17 to Sept '18) and that she's back at Stanford now. [1] It's a little bit confusing with her writing in the present tense about being at Google but I think that's because this article is composed of excerpts from her recent book, so they're excerpting a bit from that time period. [1] https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li
- nextworddev 3y agoI believe she left Google only after some controversy
- 25213521354 3y agoAre liberal arts universities really losing their liberal arts though? The emphasis and core material of a liberal arts education has shifted a bit. But considering how ubiquitous Critical Theory and its components have managed to become in everything from academia to public discourse to institutional policy-setting I don't think it's accurate at all to refer to the liberal arts as in decline. Maybe classical liberal arts but modernized liberal arts are at the heart of most politics right now.
- threeseed 3y agoI wonder if she realises that almost everyone in SV has gone to university and most have attended at least one or two ethics classes during that time. Because ultimately people will be driven by the same thing that drove previous generations: money, power, fame, success, ego etc. And no amount of university lectures with enlightened scientists and their superior values will change that.
- PradeetPatel 3y agoThe main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.
- fungiblecog 3y ago[flagged]
- Terr_ 3y ago> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place? It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?
- Barrin92 3y agoPrimary? Debatable. But you do have responsibility for what you build, who you build it for and what and who you enable with your expertise. And engineers do have plenty of that, so they have plenty of reponsibility too.
- Terr_ 3y agoOh, everyone has some contributory involvement, but I find it hard to imagine the same kind of standard being widely applied to other employee-experts in other industries. I mean, do we blame food chemists for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the candy-company should use ethically sourced fair-trade chocolate and less sugar? Or mechanical engineers for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the oil-company should avoid drilling in areas that are environmentally-sensitive or controlled by warlords of questionable legitimacy? No, we recognize that a laborer having specialized-skills doesn't automatically mean the corporate-machine is interested in their other opinions. (Unless they're visibly documenting problems that could someday harm the company in a potential lawsuit, in which case they tend to get laid off.)
- user_named 3y agoSo she saw WordNet, then had the obvious thought that everyone had, what if this but images, and then she "invented" ImageNet
- canjobear 3y agoExecution is worth much more than having an idea.
- oska 3y agodang, I see you've changed the submission title back to the article title. The thinking behind going with my submission title : > Fei-Fei Li wants AI reimagined from the ground up as a human-centered practice was that the article title was too vague. The 'North Star' she is referencing is explained in the last paragraph of the article, which is what I used to compose my submission title : > This, collectively, is the next North Star: reimagining AI from the ground up as a human-centered practice. I don’t see it as a change in the journey’s direction so much as a broadening of its scope. AI must become as committed to humanity as it’s always been to science. It should remain collaborative and deferential in the best academic tradition, but unafraid to confront the real world. Starlight, after all, is manifold. Its white glow, once unraveled, reveals every color that can be seen.
- wavemode 3y agoTitles don't get changed from the original merely for being vague. They have to be actively misleading.
- contrarian1234 3y agoTalent being siphoned off into industry is an understandable and interesting issue. I didn't expect the shift to ethics at the end. I can't help but snort when someone from an advertising company talks about ethics. You're part of a machine making billions off of exploiting human psychology to push products and get people to click ads. She's maybe not wrong about the issues with AI.. but there are way bigger problems and lower hanging fruit than vague biases in machine models. It's like worrying about if the coffee beans in Google's coffee machines are ethically sourced At the end of the day, as exemplified by ad companies, people are gunna go make money ethically or not. If you could legally turn babies into cheeseburgers someone will do it. Engineers are not the right people to deal with ethics. That's what laws and regulations are for. You don't just hope and pray the engineers are nice people. That's a naiive way to operate society
- JohnFen 3y ago> Engineers are not the right people to deal with ethics. I think that engineers (and everyone in every field) are the right people to deal with ethics. Pretty much everything anyone does has an ethical component to it, and it's a mistake to ignore that. It's an even bigger mistake to farm thinking about ethics out to specialists. Laws and regulations are critically important as well, but they don't define ethics. They are informed by ethics. That's why it's false to think that if something is legal, that means it's ethical and vice versa.
- BrenBarn 3y ago> I’d seen the consequences of that over and over: brilliant technologists who could build just about anything but who stared blankly when the question of the ethics of their work was broached. This is something I've seen as well, in contexts much more remote from the nerve centers like Google or even Stanford. It's deeply disturbing.
- RugnirViking 3y agothe best, and most useful, programs and algorithms are ones that you download off a site that hasn't been updated in years, asks no money, consists of a single .exe, and does a single job. I've been thinking a lot about tools, recently. About how much things should be designed to be predictable, narrow in scope, and simple. Predictable in particular meaning not only determinative, but also meaning with no edge cases (so they can be simplified as a mutation rather than having to think about the why of how they work).