3 ms·
It used to be that people would get into these fields thinking ML would need specifically human insights, deep thinking, and philosophical insights about the na
by michaelt 3y ago
It used to be that people would get into these fields thinking ML would need specifically human insights, deep thinking, and philosophical insights about the nature of consciousness.
You would get into natural language modelling because you had a deep love of language. Because you think you're close to figuring language out in a systematic way, with just a few years more study.
There's a certain sadness, I think, in the revelation that the robots don't need the expertise of humanity's greatest experts and masters, they just need us to click all the squares that contain a motorcycle.
- xanderlewis 3y agoHow do you know? We’re not there yet.
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoThis is 100% not why I am sad, see my other reply for information. As an aside, it's wild how people put their own spin onto what I said. Obviously I should have been clearer :shrug:.
- xanderlewis 3y agoWell, you have to forgive some for making assumptions based on your choice of username…
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoFair, I'm just generally disgruntled to be fair, the PhD was just the name of my soon abandoned blog.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sevagh 3y ago> It used to be that people would get into these fields thinking ML would need specifically human insights, deep thinking, and philosophical insights about the nature of consciousness. What's sadder is coming into a field pre-deciding that the way you approach it "is the right way" and can't tolerate that different mindsets can also get results.