5 ms·
The trouble with that argument is that if you'd have asked anyone (anyone!), in any AI related field in 1980, where AI would be in thirty years what would they
by WilliamLP 17y ago
The trouble with that argument is that if you'd have asked anyone (anyone!), in any AI related field in 1980, where AI would be in thirty years what would they have said?
Surely not "Well, for instance one of the greatest achievements might be that we will work on chess algorithms, and we will see some incremental improvements resulting from tweaking certain heuristics and more intelligent pruning through more specialized algorithms and hardcoded chess knowledge. The programs still won't be able to learn in any interesting sense, but with the help of several orders of magnitude of hardware speed, they will be 200 ELO stronger than the best human!"
- berntb 17y ago>>if you'd have asked anyone (anyone!), in any AI related field in 1980, where AI would be in thirty years what would they have said? Uhm, Hans Moravec isn't exactly "anyone". :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox Edit: To be clear, Moravec shows that you misrepresent the AI field of that time. But sure, he wasn't the mainstream.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- lliiffee 17y agoMy point is that there IS no serious "pure" AI research these days. Your image of lots of pure AI researchers wasting their time is a fantasy-- those people don't exist. People work on applications.
- chime 17y agoAnd yet there are numerous people who work on pure math and theoretical physics.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago"Those people don't exist" is a bit of an exaggeration. Eliezer Yudkowsky exists, for example. http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eyudkowsky http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eyudkowsky His research is in making AGI (artificial general intelligence) not go skynet by building in morals. That seems fairly pure to me.
- endtime 17y agoYes, "Those people don't exist" isn't technically correct; perhaps it should have been "Those people don't exist in significant numbers." The point is that people who call themselves AI researches, the vast majority of the time are not working on AGI but on weak AI.
- abossy 17y agoWe have cars that drive themselves!
- Tichy 17y agoThe DARPA car racing thing seems to be a breakthrough. Granted, 30 years ago people would have expected more. But it is more than just a chess algorithm.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- borism 17y agoDARPA Grand Challenge? How's that a breakthrough in AI? Sure, it's uses a lot of results of "AI" research, but there's nothing revolutionary about that.
- Tichy 17y agoMy understanding is that they made a big leap during the challenge - from catastrophic performance in the first run, to several successful drivers in the second run. Revolutionary or not, I don't think it was trivial to make an autonomous vehicle.