3 ms·

> We have been through several "AI Winters" before Yeah, remember when we spent 15 years (~2000 to ~2015) calling it “machine learning” because AI was a bad wo

by Swizec 1y ago

> We have been through several "AI Winters" before Yeah, remember when we spent 15 years (~2000 to ~2015) calling it “machine learning” because AI was a bad word? We use so much AI in production every day but nobody notices because as soon as a technology becomes useful, we stop calling it AI. Then it’s suddenly “just face recognition” or “just product recommendations” or “just [plane] autopilot” or “just adaptive cruise control” etc You know a technology isn’t practical yet because it’s still being called AI.

blks 1y ago
I don’t think there’s any “AI” in aircraft autopilots.
- withinboredom 1y ago
  AI encompasses a wide range of algorithms and techniques; not just LLMs or neural nets. Also, it is worth pointing out that the definition of AI has changed drastically over the last few years and narrowed pretty significantly. If you’re viewing the definition from the 80–90’s, most of what we call "automation" today would have been considered AI.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Autopilots were a thing before computers were a thing, you can implement one using mechanics and control theory. So no, traditional autopilots are not AI under any reasonable definition, otherwise every single machine we build would be considered AI as almost all machines has some form of control systems in them, for example is your microwave clock an AI? So I'd argue any algorithm that comes from control theory is not AI, those are just basic old dumb machines. You can't make planes without control theory, humans can't keep a plane steady without it, so Wrights Brothers adding this to their plane is why they succeeded making a flying machine. So if autopilots are AI then the Wrights Brothers developed an AI to control their plane. I don't think anyone sees that as AI, not even at the time they did the first flight.
    - trc001 1y ago
      Uh, the bellman equation was first used for control theory and is the foundation of modern reinforcement learning... so wouldn't that imply LLMs "come from" control theory?
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        Is the training algorithm the AI or is the model that you get at the end the AI?
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Ah yes the mythical strawman definition of AI that you can never seem to pin down, was never rigorous, and never enjoyed wide expert acceptance. It's on par with "well many people used to say, or at least so I've been told, that ...".
    - Swizec 1y ago
      That’s the point: AI is a marketing term and always has been. The underlying tech changes with every hype wave. One of the first humanoid robots was an 18th century clockwork mechanism inside a porcelain doll that autonomously wrote out “Cogito Ergo Sum” in cursive with a pen. It was considered thought provoking at the time because it implied that some day machines could think. BBC video posted to reddit 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/d6xTeqfKCv https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/d6xTeqfKCv
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        It certainly sees use as an ever shifting marketing term. That does not exclude it from being a useful technical term. Indeed if the misuse of a term by marketers was sufficient to rob a word of meaning then I doubt we'd have any means of communication left. > It was considered thought provoking at the time because it implied that some day machines could think. What constitutes "thinking"? That's approximately the same question as what qualifies as AGI. LLMs and RL seem to be the first time humanity has achieved anything that begins to resemble that but clearly both of those come up short ... at least so far. Meanwhile I'm quite certain that a glorified PID loop (ie autopilot) does not qualify as machine learning (AI if you'd prefer). If someone wants to claim that it does then he's going to need to explain how his definition excludes mechanical clockwork.
        withinboredom 1y ago
        What do you think an executing LLM is? It’s basically a glorified PID loop. It isn’t learning anything new. It isn’t thinking about your conversation while you go take a poo. And I think the point is that the definition doesn’t exclude pure mechanical devices since that’s exactly what a computer is.

by Swizec 1y ago

blks 1y ago

I don’t think there’s any “AI” in aircraft autopilots.

withinboredom 1y ago
AI encompasses a wide range of algorithms and techniques; not just LLMs or neural nets. Also, it is worth pointing out that the definition of AI has changed drastically over the last few years and narrowed pretty significantly. If you’re viewing the definition from the 80–90’s, most of what we call "automation" today would have been considered AI.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Autopilots were a thing before computers were a thing, you can implement one using mechanics and control theory. So no, traditional autopilots are not AI under any reasonable definition, otherwise every single machine we build would be considered AI as almost all machines has some form of control systems in them, for example is your microwave clock an AI? So I'd argue any algorithm that comes from control theory is not AI, those are just basic old dumb machines. You can't make planes without control theory, humans can't keep a plane steady without it, so Wrights Brothers adding this to their plane is why they succeeded making a flying machine. So if autopilots are AI then the Wrights Brothers developed an AI to control their plane. I don't think anyone sees that as AI, not even at the time they did the first flight.
  - trc001 1y ago
    Uh, the bellman equation was first used for control theory and is the foundation of modern reinforcement learning... so wouldn't that imply LLMs "come from" control theory?
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Is the training algorithm the AI or is the model that you get at the end the AI?
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Ah yes the mythical strawman definition of AI that you can never seem to pin down, was never rigorous, and never enjoyed wide expert acceptance. It's on par with "well many people used to say, or at least so I've been told, that ...".
  - Swizec 1y ago
    That’s the point: AI is a marketing term and always has been. The underlying tech changes with every hype wave. One of the first humanoid robots was an 18th century clockwork mechanism inside a porcelain doll that autonomously wrote out “Cogito Ergo Sum” in cursive with a pen. It was considered thought provoking at the time because it implied that some day machines could think. BBC video posted to reddit 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/d6xTeqfKCv https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/d6xTeqfKCv
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      It certainly sees use as an ever shifting marketing term. That does not exclude it from being a useful technical term. Indeed if the misuse of a term by marketers was sufficient to rob a word of meaning then I doubt we'd have any means of communication left. > It was considered thought provoking at the time because it implied that some day machines could think. What constitutes "thinking"? That's approximately the same question as what qualifies as AGI. LLMs and RL seem to be the first time humanity has achieved anything that begins to resemble that but clearly both of those come up short ... at least so far. Meanwhile I'm quite certain that a glorified PID loop (ie autopilot) does not qualify as machine learning (AI if you'd prefer). If someone wants to claim that it does then he's going to need to explain how his definition excludes mechanical clockwork.
      - withinboredom 1y ago
        What do you think an executing LLM is? It’s basically a glorified PID loop. It isn’t learning anything new. It isn’t thinking about your conversation while you go take a poo. And I think the point is that the definition doesn’t exclude pure mechanical devices since that’s exactly what a computer is.