5 ms·

> Every time AI researchers figure out how to do a thing... If we are going to define AI as whatever AI researchers are working on (a definition having somethi

> Every time AI researchers figure out how to do a thing... If we are going to define AI as whatever AI researchers are working on (a definition having something of a bootstrap problem), then the only way the goalposts will not move is when they are not making progress.

ben_w 2y ago
I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect? Artists certainly don't, as art remains art even when the artist themselves becomes lost to time. I suspect politicians may be, for every problem they do solve becomes the status quo… though also every problem they don't solve becomes their fault, so perhaps not. Civil engineers may be on the boundary, people forgetting that cities are built rather than natural when complaining about immigrants with phrases such as "we are full", yet remember well enough for politicians to score points with what they promise to get built.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  That's a good question, though I think art is one of the few things that is in some sense a parallel. While masterpieces of the past remain masterpieces today, the scope of what is considered art has been expanding, and while perfectly good work is being done today in styles that would have been recognized as art in the past, it probably will not attract the attention it would have gained if it had been produced in the past. Perhaps the thing that makes AI different from other aspects of computing, in terms of how its progress is regarded, is that the term invites lofty expectations.
- yutrin 2y ago
  > It's long been noticed that every time AI researchers figure out how to do a thing, it goes from "this is impossible SciFi nonsense" to "that's not real AI". I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”. So you think we’ve done it? We’ve solved the “AI” problem. We can just stop working on it now? > It's weird for me to actually encounter people doing this. Rather than posturing, perhaps you could provide us with the definition of “AI” so we can all agree it’s here. > art remains art even when the artist themselves becomes lost to time. And if statements remain if statements. What’s your point? > I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect? I disagree that there is any “effect” worth pondering, but here’s a biting quote that if written by a tech bro with unsubstantiated zeal for wasting planetary resources to engorge the wealth of unethical sociopaths it would have the word “goalposts” in it, and be the worse for it. “Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.” -Oscar Wilde
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”. Your struggle is inherent in the "AI effect". > So you think we’ve done it? > We’ve solved the “AI” problem. Calling it "the" is as wrong as calling all medical science "the" problem of medicine. Replace "AI" with "medicine" and see how ridiculous your words look. We have plenty of medicine without anyone saying "aspirin isn't medicine" or "heart transplants aren't medicine" or similar, and because nobody is saying that, nobody is saying "oh, so you think we've solved medicine, we can all just stop researching it now?" So yeah, we've repeatedly solved problems that are AI problems and which people were arguing that no computer could possibly do even as the computers were in fact doing them. > Rather than posturing, perhaps you could provide us with the definition of “AI” so we can all agree it’s here. """It is a field of research in computer science that develops and studies methods and software that enable machines to perceive their environment and discover which actions maximize their chances of achieving defined goals""" Which is pretty close to the opening paragraph on Wikipedia, sans the recursion of the latter using the word "intelligence" to define "intelligence".
    - yutrin 2y ago
      > """It is a field of research in computer science that develops and studies methods and software that enable machines to perceive their environment and discover which actions maximize their chances of achieving defined goals""" This is exactly why I suggested you define the mental model you’re working with, because now I agree with mannykannot’s first gp addressing your original lament over those you interpret as “moving the goalposts”: > If we are going to define AI as whatever AI researchers are working on then the only way the goalposts will not move is when they are not making progress. Your “definition” of “AI” is full of wishy washy anthropomorphisms like “perceive” and “discover”, and elsewhere is so broad it could apply to just about anything. An astable multivibrator with two LEDs at each output and a switch fits your definition. The circuit is a “machine” that “perceives” the switch being pressed then “discovers” which side of the circuit will “maximize its chances of achieving the goal” of illuminating the environment. > We have plenty of medicine without anyone saying "aspirin isn't medicine" or "heart transplants aren't medicine" People do in fact say blood letting the humors “isn’t medicine”. So you’re interpretation of “medicine” is yet another common example that also exhibits your apparently super rare “AI effect”? But this attempt at analogy is just a distracting digression. You appear to be changing the rigidity of your definition of “AI” ad hoc to satisfy whatever argument you’re trying to make in that moment. In this thread alone you refer to products, the “aspirins”, as “AI”, but then claim your definition is that “AI” is a “field of research”, your “medicine”. Take the press release from the product being discussed here and replace “AI” with “field of research”. “Corpo just released a ‘field of research’ for your PC.” Starting to “see how ridiculous your words look” yet?

ben_w 2y ago

I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect? Artists certainly don't, as art remains art even when the artist themselves becomes lost to time. I suspect politicians may be, for every problem they do solve becomes the status quo… though also every problem they don't solve becomes their fault, so perhaps not. Civil engineers may be on the boundary, people forgetting that cities are built rather than natural when complaining about immigrants with phrases such as "we are full", yet remember well enough for politicians to score points with what they promise to get built.

mannykannot 2y ago
That's a good question, though I think art is one of the few things that is in some sense a parallel. While masterpieces of the past remain masterpieces today, the scope of what is considered art has been expanding, and while perfectly good work is being done today in styles that would have been recognized as art in the past, it probably will not attract the attention it would have gained if it had been produced in the past. Perhaps the thing that makes AI different from other aspects of computing, in terms of how its progress is regarded, is that the term invites lofty expectations.
yutrin 2y ago
> It's long been noticed that every time AI researchers figure out how to do a thing, it goes from "this is impossible SciFi nonsense" to "that's not real AI". I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”. So you think we’ve done it? We’ve solved the “AI” problem. We can just stop working on it now? > It's weird for me to actually encounter people doing this. Rather than posturing, perhaps you could provide us with the definition of “AI” so we can all agree it’s here. > art remains art even when the artist themselves becomes lost to time. And if statements remain if statements. What’s your point? > I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect? I disagree that there is any “effect” worth pondering, but here’s a biting quote that if written by a tech bro with unsubstantiated zeal for wasting planetary resources to engorge the wealth of unethical sociopaths it would have the word “goalposts” in it, and be the worse for it. “Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.” -Oscar Wilde
- ben_w 2y ago
  > I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”. Your struggle is inherent in the "AI effect". > So you think we’ve done it? > We’ve solved the “AI” problem. Calling it "the" is as wrong as calling all medical science "the" problem of medicine. Replace "AI" with "medicine" and see how ridiculous your words look. We have plenty of medicine without anyone saying "aspirin isn't medicine" or "heart transplants aren't medicine" or similar, and because nobody is saying that, nobody is saying "oh, so you think we've solved medicine, we can all just stop researching it now?" So yeah, we've repeatedly solved problems that are AI problems and which people were arguing that no computer could possibly do even as the computers were in fact doing them. > Rather than posturing, perhaps you could provide us with the definition of “AI” so we can all agree it’s here. """It is a field of research in computer science that develops and studies methods and software that enable machines to perceive their environment and discover which actions maximize their chances of achieving defined goals""" Which is pretty close to the opening paragraph on Wikipedia, sans the recursion of the latter using the word "intelligence" to define "intelligence".
  - yutrin 2y ago
    > """It is a field of research in computer science that develops and studies methods and software that enable machines to perceive their environment and discover which actions maximize their chances of achieving defined goals""" This is exactly why I suggested you define the mental model you’re working with, because now I agree with mannykannot’s first gp addressing your original lament over those you interpret as “moving the goalposts”: > If we are going to define AI as whatever AI researchers are working on then the only way the goalposts will not move is when they are not making progress. Your “definition” of “AI” is full of wishy washy anthropomorphisms like “perceive” and “discover”, and elsewhere is so broad it could apply to just about anything. An astable multivibrator with two LEDs at each output and a switch fits your definition. The circuit is a “machine” that “perceives” the switch being pressed then “discovers” which side of the circuit will “maximize its chances of achieving the goal” of illuminating the environment. > We have plenty of medicine without anyone saying "aspirin isn't medicine" or "heart transplants aren't medicine" People do in fact say blood letting the humors “isn’t medicine”. So you’re interpretation of “medicine” is yet another common example that also exhibits your apparently super rare “AI effect”? But this attempt at analogy is just a distracting digression. You appear to be changing the rigidity of your definition of “AI” ad hoc to satisfy whatever argument you’re trying to make in that moment. In this thread alone you refer to products, the “aspirins”, as “AI”, but then claim your definition is that “AI” is a “field of research”, your “medicine”. Take the press release from the product being discussed here and replace “AI” with “field of research”. “Corpo just released a ‘field of research’ for your PC.” Starting to “see how ridiculous your words look” yet?