Sorry, but this is again abstractions and philosophy, in the genre of Steve Jobs themed motivational texts. Which I hate with boredom (get tired quickly of hating with passion).
Many things have been called “AI” and many will be. I’m certain some will bring very important change. And those may even use ML somewhere. For classification and clustering parts most likely, and maybe even extrapolation, but that’d be subject to a system of symbolic logic working above them at least, and they’ll have to find a way of adding entropy.
What they call “AI” now definitely won’t. Fundamentally.
“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” - Nelson Mandela
Quoting that one guy who hasn’t been hanged\shot\beheaded while many many many more other people trying the same have been. Survivor’s error and such.
Innovators and visionaries is what drives us forward. If they listened all the nay-sayers we would get nowhere. I will keep being optimistic about the future developments of technology.
Innovators and visionaries is what drives us forward. If they listened all the nay-sayers we would get nowhere.
How can you not see that these sentences say nothing?
What’s “forward”? From Hypercard and Genera times to today is “forward”?
Who are “innovators and visionaries”? I mean, that’d be many people, but no Steve Jobs in the list, if that’s what made you write this.
Who are “nay-sayers”? If that’s, say, Richard Stallman, then all his nays on technology (as it happens, he’s kinda weird on other things) were correct.
And the final question, why do you think you can in any way feel the wind of change, when you don’t know the fundamental basics of the area of human knowledge where you “believe” in it? Don’t you think it’s not wind of change, it’s just usual marketing for clueless people?
Say, I see a lot of promising and wonderful things, but people not knowing fundamentals get excited over something stupid which is being advertised to them.
Blue LED-lights, the TV, radio, airplanes, the personal computer, the light bulb, nuclear fission, optical microscopes, shooting lasers for an aptosecond are among some thing previously thought to be impossible to do.
Who said anything about Steve Jobs? I never mentioned anyone specific and as you say, there are many people that would make that list.
I would consider the “experts” and laymen with a sceptical attitude towards innovation to be nay-sayers.
I think it’s weird how so many people suddenly became experts on AI as soon as OpenAI released ChatGPT.
I don’t like the current trend of companies putting half-assed AI in to everything. AI is the new buzzword to bring in hype. But that doesn’t mean I can not see the value it can potentially bring in the future once it’s more developed. The developments within the AI-field has only just begun.
My use of the word AI is very broad. I am not saying that ChatGPT could drive a car. But I 100% believe that we will have self-driving cars before I die of old age.
They don’t have to be any good, they just have to be significantly better than humans. Right now they’re… probably about average, there’s plenty of drunk or stupid humans bringing the average down.
It’s true that isn’t good enough, unlike humans, self driving cars are will be judged together, so people will focus on their dumbest antics, but once their average is significantly better than human average, that will start to overrule the individual examples.
When people say neural nets are unable to reason, they don’t mean something fuzzy-cloudy like normies do, which can be rebutted by some other fuzzy-cloudy stuff. They literally mean that neural nets are unable to reason. They are not capable of logic.
Reasoning is obviously useful, not convinced it’s required to be a good driver.
In fact most driving decisions must be done rapidly, I doubt humans can be described as “reasoning” when we’re just reacting to events.
Decisions that take long enough could be handed to a human (“should we rush for the ferry, or divert for the bridge?”). It’s only the middling bit between where we will maintain this big advantage (“that truck ahead is bouncing around, I don’t like how the load is secured so I’m going to back off”). that’s a big advantage, but how much of our time is spent with our minds fully focused and engaged anyway? Once we’re on autopilot, is there much reasoning going on?
Not that I think this will be quick, I expect at least another couple of decades before self driving cars can even start to compete with us outside of specific curated situations. And once they do they’ll continue to fuck up royally whenever the situation is weird and outside their training, causing big news stories. The key question will be whether they can compete with humans on average by outperforming us in quick responses and in consistently not getting distracted/tired/drunk.
Sorry, but this is again abstractions and philosophy, in the genre of Steve Jobs themed motivational texts. Which I hate with boredom (get tired quickly of hating with passion).
Many things have been called “AI” and many will be. I’m certain some will bring very important change. And those may even use ML somewhere. For classification and clustering parts most likely, and maybe even extrapolation, but that’d be subject to a system of symbolic logic working above them at least, and they’ll have to find a way of adding entropy.
What they call “AI” now definitely won’t. Fundamentally.
Quoting that one guy who hasn’t been hanged\shot\beheaded while many many many more other people trying the same have been. Survivor’s error and such.
Innovators and visionaries is what drives us forward. If they listened all the nay-sayers we would get nowhere. I will keep being optimistic about the future developments of technology.
How can you not see that these sentences say nothing?
What’s “forward”? From Hypercard and Genera times to today is “forward”?
Who are “innovators and visionaries”? I mean, that’d be many people, but no Steve Jobs in the list, if that’s what made you write this.
Who are “nay-sayers”? If that’s, say, Richard Stallman, then all his nays on technology (as it happens, he’s kinda weird on other things) were correct.
And the final question, why do you think you can in any way feel the wind of change, when you don’t know the fundamental basics of the area of human knowledge where you “believe” in it? Don’t you think it’s not wind of change, it’s just usual marketing for clueless people?
Say, I see a lot of promising and wonderful things, but people not knowing fundamentals get excited over something stupid which is being advertised to them.
Blue LED-lights, the TV, radio, airplanes, the personal computer, the light bulb, nuclear fission, optical microscopes, shooting lasers for an aptosecond are among some thing previously thought to be impossible to do.
Who said anything about Steve Jobs? I never mentioned anyone specific and as you say, there are many people that would make that list.
I would consider the “experts” and laymen with a sceptical attitude towards innovation to be nay-sayers.
I think it’s weird how so many people suddenly became experts on AI as soon as OpenAI released ChatGPT.
I don’t like the current trend of companies putting half-assed AI in to everything. AI is the new buzzword to bring in hype. But that doesn’t mean I can not see the value it can potentially bring in the future once it’s more developed. The developments within the AI-field has only just begun.
My use of the word AI is very broad. I am not saying that ChatGPT could drive a car. But I 100% believe that we will have self-driving cars before I die of old age.
They don’t have to be any good, they just have to be significantly better than humans. Right now they’re… probably about average, there’s plenty of drunk or stupid humans bringing the average down.
It’s true that isn’t good enough, unlike humans, self driving cars are will be judged together, so people will focus on their dumbest antics, but once their average is significantly better than human average, that will start to overrule the individual examples.
Right now they are not that at all.
When people say neural nets are unable to reason, they don’t mean something fuzzy-cloudy like normies do, which can be rebutted by some other fuzzy-cloudy stuff. They literally mean that neural nets are unable to reason. They are not capable of logic.
Reasoning is obviously useful, not convinced it’s required to be a good driver. In fact most driving decisions must be done rapidly, I doubt humans can be described as “reasoning” when we’re just reacting to events. Decisions that take long enough could be handed to a human (“should we rush for the ferry, or divert for the bridge?”). It’s only the middling bit between where we will maintain this big advantage (“that truck ahead is bouncing around, I don’t like how the load is secured so I’m going to back off”). that’s a big advantage, but how much of our time is spent with our minds fully focused and engaged anyway? Once we’re on autopilot, is there much reasoning going on?
Not that I think this will be quick, I expect at least another couple of decades before self driving cars can even start to compete with us outside of specific curated situations. And once they do they’ll continue to fuck up royally whenever the situation is weird and outside their training, causing big news stories. The key question will be whether they can compete with humans on average by outperforming us in quick responses and in consistently not getting distracted/tired/drunk.