Slashdot Mirror
A Christmas Menu Dreamed Up by a Robot (bbc.com)
For most of us, using up the Christmas leftovers means endless rounds of turkey sandwiches and lashings of Brussel sprout curry in the days leading up to New Year. So, to help inject some creativity into this year's leftover eat-up, BBC turned to artificial intelligence for some culinary assistance. From a report: A number of research teams around the world have been developing AI systems that are capable of learning from existing recipes and then coming up with some of their own. We asked researchers behind two innovative algorithms to see what their AI's take would be on Christmas food. One, developed by computer scientists at Stanford University, can turn whatever food is left in your fridge into a unique recipe based on those ingredients. The other, created by AI researchers at the University of Illinois, puts a cultural twist on a meal by creating dishes from one country in the style of another cuisine.
The first algorithm, called Forage, uses a type of AI known as deep neural networks, which attempts to replicate the way the human brain works. Networks like these are able to handle problems involving complex data and are increasingly being used to tackle tasks as diverse as controlling self-driving cars and recognising the early signs of cancer in health scans. [...] The second algorithm we used was developed by Lav Varshney and his team at the University of Illinois. It was trained on nearly 40,000 recipes from 20 different countries using a system that can apply semantic reasoning to replace certain ingredients with those it considers to be equivalent from a different cuisine.
The first algorithm, called Forage, uses a type of AI known as deep neural networks, which attempts to replicate the way the human brain works. Networks like these are able to handle problems involving complex data and are increasingly being used to tackle tasks as diverse as controlling self-driving cars and recognising the early signs of cancer in health scans. [...] The second algorithm we used was developed by Lav Varshney and his team at the University of Illinois. It was trained on nearly 40,000 recipes from 20 different countries using a system that can apply semantic reasoning to replace certain ingredients with those it considers to be equivalent from a different cuisine.
Just correlating stuff without understanding does not work and can only succeed by chance. Understanding, however, remains firmly in the hands of humans, machines have not even demonstrated they may potentially one day far in the future have any say in that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The AI bubble is basically driven by animism. Primitive beliefs do not go away easily, so that utter nonsense may continue to be around for quite a while.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
https://xkcd.com/720/
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If AI systems really worked, why would you apply them to creating recipes, playing Go, and playing Chess? I mean, these morons inputted 40,000 recipes in some form and trained a NN against it. Why? Is there no practical use?
Leftovers? Why not use something like the reverse recipe maker or one of the bazillions of online utilities like it?
Why do you need AI to tell you what you can make from a few miscellaneous ingredients? I'm all for useful applications of AI, but this is just stupid.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Why not "test" them on something else than life-support machines? Why the endless examples of playing Go and Chess and recipes and playing video games?
Because go and chess have measurable complexity, so they can better gauge their progress.
Also, there are no externalities, so they can better measure their progress.
You want to put it to work doing something practical, you have to get some PHB to agree, and then that PHB will add externalities, and change both the instructions and the externalities as the results come in. That's all well and good for whatever they use they want to put it to, but it doesn't work for building the theoretical framework. And you want the programming libraries to be based on a theoretical framework.
Obviously, 1 + 1 = the programming libraries are still too difficult to work with for PHB-led projects. This is why it is used for practical stuff, but at the level of trade secrets; only the people with high quality teams and certain classes of problems are going to be doing this in practice already, and it still so hard to put together (from management perspective, using a big team that includes turnover) that it is just siloed. Once there is enough competition in those uses, then they'll start extracting their toolsets into libraries and leveraging that to become big players. Then it will become accessible to the masses.
"It" didn't imagine anything, but just as many things were still imagined. They simply gave credit to the machine, instead of the machine's builder. That is quaint and animistic, but it is also just a word game.
It isn't the case that in other cases of engineering the average person understands it was the programmers and engineers who "did" some task by building and programming a computer; instead they say the computer itself did the task!
So this is exactly the same indirection as if there was no AI.
TLDR; Ur rong
I'm tempted to try it on the ingredient lists from Chopped shows to see what it would come up with. "Your basket has pickled pig lips, squid ink, bitter melon, and kumquats...".
"The "utter" nonsense here is assertions like "AI is driven by animism"
I disagree. I think a part of the hype around 'achieving' autonomous cars, real AI, robot sentience, and around things in the past like puppets, plants or lumps of clay becoming sentient, is at least partly driven by emotion that's related to ideas like animism, spontaneous generation, and the joining of the physical and spiritual into a duality.
Quite obvious so. Of course, people believing in animism today are not completely sane and are not very smart as well. Hence they will react just as the AC above when their screwed-up beliefs are challenged.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Of course, people believing in animism today are not completely sane and are not very smart as well."
I wouldn't go there, but I do think most of us were deeply exposed to that and related ideas, be it through religion, super heroes, or children's entertainment in general, and that when we grow older the awe and similar emotions we felt in those situations will unconsciously bias our judgement when we're exposed to recent technological advances.