4 ms·

The thing that's so aggravating about this article is what is so aggravating about AI: the arrogant comparison of software systems to true intelligence. The e

The thing that's so aggravating about this article is what is so aggravating about AI: the arrogant comparison of software systems to true intelligence. The examples cited by the article are emphatically not "intelligence" as we understand it: Siri isn't, Watson isn't, Google's self-driving cars aren't. They represent algorithms (clever, in many cases) executed by a stored-program computer -- or many. They take advantage of what computers are really good at: the ability to perfectly execute endless streams of simple instructions with astonishing speed; the ability to access vast quantities of data with zero error; and the ability to reliably transmit that data to one another. These innovations also reflect the fundamental brittleness of the machines that implement them: the machines can only do exactly what they're told -- and if they're told to do the wrong thing, they will gladly do it. The intelligence, then, is purely in the humans that are programming and engineering the thing -- not the thing itself. I understand that this distinction is entirely lost on those who have no understanding of what's behind the curtain -- but we do a broader disservice when we pretend that our adept sleight of hand is, in fact, magic. And my apologies for just speaking the truths that many here already know; over my decades in computer science, I have tried to hold my tongue whenever the AI cultists scream at passers-by that the singularity is near -- but every now and again I must scream back for my own sanity.

rm445 13y ago
Some of us believe that general intelligence is possible in (complex) software on a (powerful) stored-program computer. As in, we don't know how to write it yet but it doesn't require weird quantum effects. The processors are just doing the very simple operations they are told to, very fast, but the intelligence arises from the complexity of the system. However I quite agree that the cheerleaders for AI frequently do us all a disservice by exaggerating the successes, and above all by exaggerating how close we may be to a breakthrough.
hencq 13y ago
It doesn't seem like you actually read the article, but are just commenting on the title. They're not saying any of these innovations are true intelligence. What they're saying is that computers (and robots) are starting to do things that until recently were thought to be solely the domain of humans. They're saying that we're at the start of a new industrial revolution (a second machine age) which will lead to enormous increases in productivity. This article focuses on the positive effects. In their book they actually spend quite a lot of time discussing potential negative effects as well, such as unemployment. You'll be glad to hear that they agree with you that jobs like programming and engineering will be ever more important in that world.
- bcantrill 13y ago
  As much as I might like to deny it, I did, in fact, read the article: Because the exponential, digital, and recombinant powers of the second machine age have made it possible for humanity to create two of the most important one-time events in our history: the emergence of real, useful artificial intelligence (AI) and the connection of most of the people on the planet via a common digital network. "The emergence of real, useful artificial intelligence" is what I dispute; if the article chose to describe this as the "emergence of real, useful, algorithms and systems to address meaningful problems" then, fine. But of course, that isn't news, either -- it's merely the story of humanity in a sentence: it is us using our bipedalism and our oversized brains to do what we have always done to survive and thrive.
Houshalter 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect Once you understand the algorithm, suddenly it doesn't seem mysterious and then it can't be "true" AI. I'll agree that advancements in machine learning aren't necessarily leading to strong AI, but they are still incredible advancements. Many problems in the field of AI have been solved, and then suddenly dismissed as not being "AI".
tim333 13y ago
It depends a bit on what you mean by "intelligence as we understand it". As I see it animals have varying levels of intelligence - even amongst flies buzzing around the room I notice some of them just blindly crash into things but some of the larger species understand the layout of the room including windows and fly about without crashing. At a higher level Orangutans have been known to watch their keeper lock the door and then try to pick the lock. I don't think you can say only humans who can say play chess are intelligent and the rest doesn't count. On this scale computer systems are at around the smart fly level and improving. As regards the the argument that AI is just human developed algorithms, you and I are probably just evolution developed networks of neurons. How does that prove whether either system is smart or not?

rm445 13y ago

Some of us believe that general intelligence is possible in (complex) software on a (powerful) stored-program computer. As in, we don't know how to write it yet but it doesn't require weird quantum effects. The processors are just doing the very simple operations they are told to, very fast, but the intelligence arises from the complexity of the system. However I quite agree that the cheerleaders for AI frequently do us all a disservice by exaggerating the successes, and above all by exaggerating how close we may be to a breakthrough.

hencq 13y ago

It doesn't seem like you actually read the article, but are just commenting on the title. They're not saying any of these innovations are true intelligence. What they're saying is that computers (and robots) are starting to do things that until recently were thought to be solely the domain of humans. They're saying that we're at the start of a new industrial revolution (a second machine age) which will lead to enormous increases in productivity. This article focuses on the positive effects. In their book they actually spend quite a lot of time discussing potential negative effects as well, such as unemployment. You'll be glad to hear that they agree with you that jobs like programming and engineering will be ever more important in that world.

bcantrill 13y ago
As much as I might like to deny it, I did, in fact, read the article: Because the exponential, digital, and recombinant powers of the second machine age have made it possible for humanity to create two of the most important one-time events in our history: the emergence of real, useful artificial intelligence (AI) and the connection of most of the people on the planet via a common digital network. "The emergence of real, useful artificial intelligence" is what I dispute; if the article chose to describe this as the "emergence of real, useful, algorithms and systems to address meaningful problems" then, fine. But of course, that isn't news, either -- it's merely the story of humanity in a sentence: it is us using our bipedalism and our oversized brains to do what we have always done to survive and thrive.

Houshalter 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect Once you understand the algorithm, suddenly it doesn't seem mysterious and then it can't be "true" AI. I'll agree that advancements in machine learning aren't necessarily leading to strong AI, but they are still incredible advancements. Many problems in the field of AI have been solved, and then suddenly dismissed as not being "AI".

tim333 13y ago

It depends a bit on what you mean by "intelligence as we understand it". As I see it animals have varying levels of intelligence - even amongst flies buzzing around the room I notice some of them just blindly crash into things but some of the larger species understand the layout of the room including windows and fly about without crashing. At a higher level Orangutans have been known to watch their keeper lock the door and then try to pick the lock. I don't think you can say only humans who can say play chess are intelligent and the rest doesn't count. On this scale computer systems are at around the smart fly level and improving. As regards the the argument that AI is just human developed algorithms, you and I are probably just evolution developed networks of neurons. How does that prove whether either system is smart or not?