6 ms·

Essentially, the article accuses AI researchers of searching for their lost keys under streetlamps. Fair enough, but I wonder if the best use of AI research is

Essentially, the article accuses AI researchers of searching for their lost keys under streetlamps. Fair enough, but I wonder if the best use of AI research is to get computers to solve problems that a person could easily solve. I thought the point of, e.g. a search engine is to solve problems a person can't easily solve.

dnautics 13y ago
you should read "fluid concepts and creative analogies". There was some good headway made in this direction that got lost.
fragsworth 13y ago
> I wonder if the best use of AI research is to get computers to solve problems that a person could easily solve That's pretty short-sighted. These "easy" problems are stepping stones to much more difficult problems. For instance, you cannot tell a machine something like "build my website" without it being able to solve the easy stuff first.
- cr4zy 13y ago
  And once a machine has learned to do something "easy" in the same way we do, that is via sensory perception, it will be extremely exciting to see how that knowledge can be forked and evolved via the excellent copyability inherent in computers.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- bad_user 13y ago
  Oh come on, sure you can tell a computer "build my website". You can use language, or you can click a button. Oh, but the result is not what you want? Even when communicating with a human, you need to provide some specs, right? But then, natural language is way to imprecise and open to interpretation, coupled with the fact that people don't really know for sure what they want, so even when speaking with a developer, you're going to go through several iterations. So for the ultimate flexibility and automation, the user interface of such a smart appliance will end up being essentially a programming language (being the same reason for why lawyers and mathematicians have their own language that's anything but natural). Truth of the matter is, computers answering to commands aren't really that interesting, as they already do this. What we really want are computers capable of ideas. Also, natural language processing is hard because it's based on an incredible amount of implicit context that life taught us ever since we were born and when communicating to our fellow humans, it's never about just the actual words being spoken. When saying something like "build my website" your spouse probably knows you're talking about a website meant for marketing yourself and she probably knows your tastes and values too; she observed your fears and dreams while living your mundane life, even if you've never talked with her explicitly about such issues (speaking of women, they are incredibly good at reading between the lines). Solving natural language processing is basically akin to creating sentient beings.
  - derefr 13y ago
    > So for the ultimate flexibility and automation, the user interface of such a smart appliance will end up being essentially a programming language No; when a client asks me to build them a website, I don't demand a specification. I interrogate them in regular natural language about each thing, until I'm reasonably sure which things they care about being a certain way (I'll make those things that way to the best of my ability) and which things they don't care how they end up (I'll make those things however I "like" to make them, or randomly if I have no opinion either.) I think the one thing we're lacking in software UX right now is the concept of a dialogue--you and the computer both asking questions to clarify your mental model of what the other agent currently has in mind, and adding facts to correct misconceptions until those models are aligned.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  In order for a computer to be able to build your website, it would have to be pretty intelligent. The computer would have to be able to learn on it's own, reason, etc. These aren't stepping stones towards that. A bunch of special purpose algorithms is good, but you have to have a fully general one to do most the work. Once you have that, you could just have it learn the rest on it's own.
BinRoo 13y ago
Solving questions a human could easily solve is a first step, don't you think?
mathgladiator 13y ago
This comment with the original article reminds me of a quote from Dijkstra on how pointless it is to get AI to do human work, but instead to enhance human's abilities. For instance, my intelligence combined with a computer + terminal + any REPL >>> my intelligence otherwise. Does anyone know the precise quote from Dijkstra?
- mindcrime 13y ago
  I don't know the quote in question, but it sounds interesting. A little searching turned up two interesting thoughts from Dijkstra on AI: Finally, to correct the possible impression that the inability to face radical novelty is confined to the industrial world, let me offer you an explanation of the continuing popularity of artificial intelligence. You would expect people to feel threatened by the “giant brains or machines that think”. In fact, the frightening computer becomes less frightening if it is used only to simulate a familiar noncomputer. I am sure that this explanation will remain controversial for quite some time for artificial intelligence, as a mimicking of the human mind, prefers to view itself as being at the front line, whereas my explanation relegates it to the rearguard. (The effort of using machines to mimic the human mind has always struck me as rather silly. I would rather use them to mimic something better. “The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim”
sampo 13y ago
> Essentially, the article accuses AI researchers of searching for their lost keys under streetlamps. As fas as I understand the history of AI research, people have also searched for their keys in the dark. They just haven't found them.
austinz 13y ago
From a robotics standpoint, there are lots of problems that humans find easy in the general case, but might still be hard for humans because of context (e.g. deep within a wrecked nuclear plant, on Mars, etc).
tzs 13y ago
I want both. AI that can do things we can't easily do: that's for building Multivac. AI that can do things we can easily do: that's for building Asimov-style robots.
Houshalter 13y ago
Even though people can do it easily, it automates it. You don't have to actually hire a personal assistant to follow you around and do stuff for you when you can just have an AI on your phone. And then there is doing stuff that isn't easy for humans that requires at least the same level of intelligence. Like engineering things or writing computer programs.
nawitus 13y ago
>Fair enough, but I wonder if the best use of AI research is to get computers to solve problems that a person could easily solve. I don't know about "best", but solving problems that a person can solve will increase the standard of living and create immense economic growth, because solving problems that only humans can solve means that more human work can be automated.
- makomk 13y ago
  Will it really increase overall standards of living? We already have problems with there not being enough jobs to go around, automating more human work will just make that worse.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    That's called ludditism.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      I see this a lot online: pointing out that a concept has a name is not a refutation.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Also they got the name wrong. Not to mention the definition.

dnautics 13y ago

you should read "fluid concepts and creative analogies". There was some good headway made in this direction that got lost.

fragsworth 13y ago

> I wonder if the best use of AI research is to get computers to solve problems that a person could easily solve That's pretty short-sighted. These "easy" problems are stepping stones to much more difficult problems. For instance, you cannot tell a machine something like "build my website" without it being able to solve the easy stuff first.

cr4zy 13y ago
And once a machine has learned to do something "easy" in the same way we do, that is via sensory perception, it will be extremely exciting to see how that knowledge can be forked and evolved via the excellent copyability inherent in computers.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bad_user 13y ago
Oh come on, sure you can tell a computer "build my website". You can use language, or you can click a button. Oh, but the result is not what you want? Even when communicating with a human, you need to provide some specs, right? But then, natural language is way to imprecise and open to interpretation, coupled with the fact that people don't really know for sure what they want, so even when speaking with a developer, you're going to go through several iterations. So for the ultimate flexibility and automation, the user interface of such a smart appliance will end up being essentially a programming language (being the same reason for why lawyers and mathematicians have their own language that's anything but natural). Truth of the matter is, computers answering to commands aren't really that interesting, as they already do this. What we really want are computers capable of ideas. Also, natural language processing is hard because it's based on an incredible amount of implicit context that life taught us ever since we were born and when communicating to our fellow humans, it's never about just the actual words being spoken. When saying something like "build my website" your spouse probably knows you're talking about a website meant for marketing yourself and she probably knows your tastes and values too; she observed your fears and dreams while living your mundane life, even if you've never talked with her explicitly about such issues (speaking of women, they are incredibly good at reading between the lines). Solving natural language processing is basically akin to creating sentient beings.
- derefr 13y ago
  > So for the ultimate flexibility and automation, the user interface of such a smart appliance will end up being essentially a programming language No; when a client asks me to build them a website, I don't demand a specification. I interrogate them in regular natural language about each thing, until I'm reasonably sure which things they care about being a certain way (I'll make those things that way to the best of my ability) and which things they don't care how they end up (I'll make those things however I "like" to make them, or randomly if I have no opinion either.) I think the one thing we're lacking in software UX right now is the concept of a dialogue--you and the computer both asking questions to clarify your mental model of what the other agent currently has in mind, and adding facts to correct misconceptions until those models are aligned.
Houshalter 13y ago
In order for a computer to be able to build your website, it would have to be pretty intelligent. The computer would have to be able to learn on it's own, reason, etc. These aren't stepping stones towards that. A bunch of special purpose algorithms is good, but you have to have a fully general one to do most the work. Once you have that, you could just have it learn the rest on it's own.

BinRoo 13y ago

Solving questions a human could easily solve is a first step, don't you think?

mathgladiator 13y ago

This comment with the original article reminds me of a quote from Dijkstra on how pointless it is to get AI to do human work, but instead to enhance human's abilities. For instance, my intelligence combined with a computer + terminal + any REPL >>> my intelligence otherwise. Does anyone know the precise quote from Dijkstra?

mindcrime 13y ago
I don't know the quote in question, but it sounds interesting. A little searching turned up two interesting thoughts from Dijkstra on AI: Finally, to correct the possible impression that the inability to face radical novelty is confined to the industrial world, let me offer you an explanation of the continuing popularity of artificial intelligence. You would expect people to feel threatened by the “giant brains or machines that think”. In fact, the frightening computer becomes less frightening if it is used only to simulate a familiar noncomputer. I am sure that this explanation will remain controversial for quite some time for artificial intelligence, as a mimicking of the human mind, prefers to view itself as being at the front line, whereas my explanation relegates it to the rearguard. (The effort of using machines to mimic the human mind has always struck me as rather silly. I would rather use them to mimic something better. “The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim”

sampo 13y ago

> Essentially, the article accuses AI researchers of searching for their lost keys under streetlamps. As fas as I understand the history of AI research, people have also searched for their keys in the dark. They just haven't found them.

austinz 13y ago

From a robotics standpoint, there are lots of problems that humans find easy in the general case, but might still be hard for humans because of context (e.g. deep within a wrecked nuclear plant, on Mars, etc).

tzs 13y ago

I want both. AI that can do things we can't easily do: that's for building Multivac. AI that can do things we can easily do: that's for building Asimov-style robots.

Houshalter 13y ago

Even though people can do it easily, it automates it. You don't have to actually hire a personal assistant to follow you around and do stuff for you when you can just have an AI on your phone. And then there is doing stuff that isn't easy for humans that requires at least the same level of intelligence. Like engineering things or writing computer programs.

nawitus 13y ago

>Fair enough, but I wonder if the best use of AI research is to get computers to solve problems that a person could easily solve. I don't know about "best", but solving problems that a person can solve will increase the standard of living and create immense economic growth, because solving problems that only humans can solve means that more human work can be automated.

makomk 13y ago
Will it really increase overall standards of living? We already have problems with there not being enough jobs to go around, automating more human work will just make that worse.
- nawitus 13y ago
  That's called ludditism.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    I see this a lot online: pointing out that a concept has a name is not a refutation.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Also they got the name wrong. Not to mention the definition.