3 ms·
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 adap
by 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 agoI 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 ;)