3 ms·

No law of nature prevents algorithms from being able to learn like we do, except (1) I don't think Google's (or BMW's or Volvo's - whatever) algorithms are even

by mojuba 13y ago

No law of nature prevents algorithms from being able to learn like we do, except (1) I don't think Google's (or BMW's or Volvo's - whatever) algorithms are even trying to do that, and (2) algorithms that learn like humans haven't been created yet.

habitue 13y ago
Ah, ok. I of course agree with you about the narrow case of Google's current self driving car initiative. It's likely they don't yet have the capability to adapt to the varied conditions a human could, and won't for some time. I suppose I was thrown off by your phrasing "fundamental difference between humans and algorithms" and "algorithms will never be able to do that" and "I don't believe in algorithms that would do image or voice recognition as well as we do". In fact, it seemed to me the entire point of your comment was to take the specific limitations of Google's current algorithm, and use it as an example of a general principle that algorithms are fundamentally limited in ways humans are not. If that wasn't the point of your original comment, what was?
- mojuba 13y ago
  I think I'm still technically correct in that no algorithm can imitate humans, because no such algorithm exists yet. I should have said "humans and existing algorithms" probably. Google's approach to the problem has nothing to do with the (nonexistent) "A.I." as media likes to present it, it's just incredibly complex software that's trying its best to tackle the problem of navigating the roads, recognizing signs, other vehicles, etc. I can imagine it's an enormous effort that doesn't guarantee success. See "Siri, Call Me An Ambulance" meme as an example of a comparable effort ;)
josephlord 13y ago
But the point of the self driving car seems to be to dehumanise the driver to make it more predictable, reliable and less distractable. Create too good a copy and you will need to do something to stop it getting bored and distracted. It is quite possible that the learning abilities come along with downsides.

by mojuba 13y ago

habitue 13y ago

Ah, ok. I of course agree with you about the narrow case of Google's current self driving car initiative. It's likely they don't yet have the capability to adapt to the varied conditions a human could, and won't for some time. I suppose I was thrown off by your phrasing "fundamental difference between humans and algorithms" and "algorithms will never be able to do that" and "I don't believe in algorithms that would do image or voice recognition as well as we do". In fact, it seemed to me the entire point of your comment was to take the specific limitations of Google's current algorithm, and use it as an example of a general principle that algorithms are fundamentally limited in ways humans are not. If that wasn't the point of your original comment, what was?

mojuba 13y ago
I think I'm still technically correct in that no algorithm can imitate humans, because no such algorithm exists yet. I should have said "humans and existing algorithms" probably. Google's approach to the problem has nothing to do with the (nonexistent) "A.I." as media likes to present it, it's just incredibly complex software that's trying its best to tackle the problem of navigating the roads, recognizing signs, other vehicles, etc. I can imagine it's an enormous effort that doesn't guarantee success. See "Siri, Call Me An Ambulance" meme as an example of a comparable effort ;)

josephlord 13y ago

But the point of the self driving car seems to be to dehumanise the driver to make it more predictable, reliable and less distractable. Create too good a copy and you will need to do something to stop it getting bored and distracted. It is quite possible that the learning abilities come along with downsides.