Seriously, I would say 1000 hours of social work for the "nice" person that wrote this and, say, 100M fine for Google to allow this in the app-store in the first place would be a good first step. Not everybody gets a good education when they grow up, and it usually not not their own fault. This also has nothing to do with IQ. Camouflage it a bit better and you find supposedly educated people fall for the most obviously stupid things. Examples: Religion, Trump promises, Erdogan promises, human-like AI, etc.
Ah, yes, _those_. Another field they excel in is identifying "(web application) implementation worst practices" and then using them extensively. Many coders seem to struggle getting it to work at all and have not grasped any of the finer points that are so all-important. They are about as useful as a person that has figured out how to get to the other side of the road, but has never understood that there are little things like looking for and avoiding traffic and quite often even has failed to understand that they should find out beforehand whether there is actually a need to get to the other side of the road.
Usual situation is fuckups on both sides. True, management is often pretty bad, but so are coders. I am somebody that sometimes gets called in to help when this happens.
I mean, for example web developers that put all their stuff in the top level directory in an enterprise landscape and hence make any kind of mixed-application proxying impossible? Or people that parse an URL (because they thought it was a neat way to get parameters) that comes from another application and goes to a third one and that that should just opaquely pass though? Or all the instances where unprotected state goes to the client in a security-critical environment, despite the policies very explicitly prohibiting that (guess nobody looked what that nice "framework" actually did...).?
Most coders are idiots and have no clue what they are doing.
Ah yes, I recently fixed a bug that causes higher-than-needed effort in error handling for a hard to reproduce error case. I am still explaining to them that they cannot really test the fix with reasonable effort with their testing set-up.
We have zero systems that can "reason". We have some systems that can mechanically apply a logical calculus to a given set of facts, no reasoning involved. It may look like "reasoning" to those that have no clue about the subject matter, though.
Actually it is and that is exactly how it works. Sure it can "learn", but it cannot recognize mistakes. So it cannot "learn from mistakes". "Learning" from mistakes requires supervised learning in statistical classificatiors, and there the identification of a "mistake" comes from outside.
I suggest you find out what you are talking about. Watson is weak AI. It has no intelligence whatsoever and to expert audiences IBM does not claim differently. And actually, there are exactly zero "strong AI systems" in existence at this time and zero are expected to be created by actual experts in the next few decades.
I have heard about it, but unlike you I actually understand what it means. It only surpasses humans in its "Big Data" aspects, not in the actual AI parts. These are so bad that the expert "beaten" thought he would have no trouble finding a strategy to beat it, and that after he had seen it play only a few times. AlphaGo had the full history of the expert's playing style, the expert had nothing the other way round before.
In short, this was a stunt. It does not show what most people think it shows. No AI expert got really excited about this either.
And we have even less of an idea what consciousness is. According to the current scientific state-of-the-art, there is no physical mechanism for consciousness, yet it clearly exists. Of course, said AI fanatics will say nonsense like...
If you have no idea what it is, how would you know that it is nonsense ?
Simple logic. If consciousness does not exist, but is just an illusion, however illusions require consciousness, then the claim leads to a contradiction ("Reductio ad absurdum"), and hence the claim is false.
there is no physical mechanism for consciousness
If there's no physical mechanism, how/why did it evolve ?
Do you know that it evolved? Claiming that everything must have evolved is nonsense. Science does not make such a claim. It claims that our bodies have evolved, and that is a very well founded claim given genetics. It is not a 100% thing though, more like 95%. (Not predicting a "God" or such nonsense here, but some other mechanisms could have had major impact.)
Now, we do not have any such data for consciousness. We simply do not know how it works at all and what we have in Physics currently does not contain any mechanism for it. We also have so far failed to detect any "DNA" or other signatures in it that would indicate it is mostly inherited. Claiming that consciousness "evolved" is not scientifically sound at this time as there are no actual observation to support that.
As Physics is very well understood at this time, this is a major problem and the only scientifically valid answer to how consciousness or intelligence works is "We do not know". The question is open.
Actually, terminology has shifted. These used to be called "cognitive systems", now they are called "weak AI". Weak AI is not intelligent, but it aims to duplicate things that can be done using intelligence by use of automation. As such, it is a proper area of AI research. I agree that the terminology is not that well chosen and I blame the incompetence of the press that still claims computers are "intelligent" all the time.
On the risk of repeating myself: Weak AI cannot learn from mistakes. Not possible. The best it can do is request a classification of a sample from en entity with actual intelligence (only ones available at this time: humans), add that to the training set and run the training again.
The problem is that an AI has no concept of a human-made mistake or a "prank". A human actually does a complex risk-analysis and risk-acceptance process here and there is no way that weak AI will ever be able to do that. Best we can hope for is that things like this get added to the map.
Indeed. Humans are running quite a few things using mostly automation. Actually thinking about things takes longer and usually the automation has already started to take action when you, for example, consciously realize a situation is not what your reflexes think it it and then need to stop it. The thing that makes human automation better is not that it is fundamentally better, but that it is using supervised learning with an actual intelligence pre-classifying things and making sure it it is not off. Most AI these days is being trained unsupervised (because labeling everything in the training set is expensive and potentially difficult) and that cannot deal with "tricky" data.
Of course, when you have a "WTF is that sign"-moment, you take a bit longer, but you will do things like plausibility checks ("can there be a stop sign here") and risk evaluation. Since automation cannot do that, in order to prevent it from doing emergency measures (full stop + call for help) all the time, its threshold for detecting things are out of whack needs to be higher than in a human being and that contributes to misidentification of things.
Since you obviously are a racist, there really is no point in explaining to you how your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You do not have the mental capabilities to recognize actual facts.
"Weak" AI (and that is what we are talking about here) cannot "learn from mistakes". That skill is reserved for actual intelligence and "strong" AI. Strong AI has the little problem that it does not exist as it is currently completely unknown how it could be created, despite about half a century of intense research.
That is nonsense. AIs have never surpassed human performance (of course, you always need to compare to a human expert) and there is no rational reason to expect that they ever will. Incidentally, said "great" model is currently completely out of reach, even for relatively simple things like driving a car (which almost all humans can learn to do, i.e. it does not require much). The best we will get is a model that solves a lot of standard situations from a catalog and appeals to human help in the rest. That is pretty useful and will make things like self-driving cars a reality, but some things that smart human beings can do will likely remain out of reach for a long time and quite possibly forever.
The thing is that many people will actually become obsolete, if not quite so soon. The problem is that while technically they are intelligent people, they do not really use their intelligence, and that makes their jobs accessible to automation. Of course, those that actually do use their intelligence will not get replaced successfully anytime soon and quite possible not ever. The thing the public does not understand is that at this time we have absolutely no idea how intelligence is created. There is not even a mathematical theory that would work reasonably well in a physical system in this universe.
For example, automated theorem proving (which is one of the few things that may be seen as actually creating "intelligence") is so limited in performance, that making the whole universe into a gigantic computer, it would still be less capable as a smart human being. As a result, we do not have any clue how humans do it and hence cannot emulate that process. There are a few rather strong hints (consistently ignored by the AI fanatics) that things may be a lot more complicated. For example, we do only observe actual intelligence in connection with consciousness. Seeing them as separate is hence not a scientifically sound approach. And we have even less of an idea what consciousness is. According to the current scientific state-of-the-art, there is no physical mechanism for consciousness, yet it clearly exists. Of course, said AI fanatics will say nonsense like "consciousness is an illusion" (If so, who has the illusion? Illusions require consciousness!) and the like. That is just a pathetic attempt to cover up how tiny their actual knowledge is in comparison to their grand claims.
Weak AI is characterized by not being intelligent. It is merely statistical classification, algorithmic planning and things like that. It has the advantage that (unlike "strong" AI) it is actually available. But it has the disadvantage that is has zero understanding of what it is doing. As strong AI is not even on the distant horizon, in fact it is unclear whether it is possible to create it at all (despite what a lot of morons that have never understood current research in the field or have not even looked at it like to claim), weak AI is all we will have for the foreseeable future. This means that we have to fake a lot of things that even the tiniest bit of actual intelligence could easily do by itself.
Of course, weak AI is still massively useful, but confusing it with actual intelligence is dangerous. It is however noting any actual expert will ever do. They know. It is just the stupid public that does not get it at all. As usual.
But that is just the thing: If this is aimed at translation or text analysis, then this is the right date to train it on and "fixing" it actually breaks things. Translation requires accuracy and part of any good translation is guessing right. PC is just lying about how things really are and that may be fatal when translating or analyzing things.
Now, I do not claim this is a good thing, but lying to your statistical classifier during training is about as stupid as it gets.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I would say 1000 hours of social work for the "nice" person that wrote this and, say, 100M fine for Google to allow this in the app-store in the first place would be a good first step. Not everybody gets a good education when they grow up, and it usually not not their own fault. This also has nothing to do with IQ. Camouflage it a bit better and you find supposedly educated people fall for the most obviously stupid things. Examples: Religion, Trump promises, Erdogan promises, human-like AI, etc.
First, all my hardware must run Linux and be able to dual-boot. And second, hardware from Microsoft? Over-priced and not so good? No way.
Ah, yes, _those_. Another field they excel in is identifying "(web application) implementation worst practices" and then using them extensively. Many coders seem to struggle getting it to work at all and have not grasped any of the finer points that are so all-important. They are about as useful as a person that has figured out how to get to the other side of the road, but has never understood that there are little things like looking for and avoiding traffic and quite often even has failed to understand that they should find out beforehand whether there is actually a need to get to the other side of the road.
Usual situation is fuckups on both sides. True, management is often pretty bad, but so are coders. I am somebody that sometimes gets called in to help when this happens.
I mean, for example web developers that put all their stuff in the top level directory in an enterprise landscape and hence make any kind of mixed-application proxying impossible? Or people that parse an URL (because they thought it was a neat way to get parameters) that comes from another application and goes to a third one and that that should just opaquely pass though? Or all the instances where unprotected state goes to the client in a security-critical environment, despite the policies very explicitly prohibiting that (guess nobody looked what that nice "framework" actually did...).?
Most coders are idiots and have no clue what they are doing.
Ah yes, I recently fixed a bug that causes higher-than-needed effort in error handling for a hard to reproduce error case. I am still explaining to them that they cannot really test the fix with reasonable effort with their testing set-up.
You misunderstand what these techniques actually do.
Ah yes, the time when "experts" believed that everybody would have a smart robot servant in their homes withing 10 years and such utter nonsense.
We have zero systems that can "reason". We have some systems that can mechanically apply a logical calculus to a given set of facts, no reasoning involved. It may look like "reasoning" to those that have no clue about the subject matter, though.
That does not make any sense at all. You are confused.
Actually it is and that is exactly how it works. Sure it can "learn", but it cannot recognize mistakes. So it cannot "learn from mistakes". "Learning" from mistakes requires supervised learning in statistical classificatiors, and there the identification of a "mistake" comes from outside.
Progress in strong AI has been exactly zero, whether 50 years ago or today.
I suggest you find out what you are talking about. Watson is weak AI. It has no intelligence whatsoever and to expert audiences IBM does not claim differently. And actually, there are exactly zero "strong AI systems" in existence at this time and zero are expected to be created by actual experts in the next few decades.
I have heard about it, but unlike you I actually understand what it means. It only surpasses humans in its "Big Data" aspects, not in the actual AI parts. These are so bad that the expert "beaten" thought he would have no trouble finding a strategy to beat it, and that after he had seen it play only a few times. AlphaGo had the full history of the expert's playing style, the expert had nothing the other way round before.
In short, this was a stunt. It does not show what most people think it shows. No AI expert got really excited about this either.
And we have even less of an idea what consciousness is. According to the current scientific state-of-the-art, there is no physical mechanism for consciousness, yet it clearly exists. Of course, said AI fanatics will say nonsense like ...
If you have no idea what it is, how would you know that it is nonsense ?
Simple logic. If consciousness does not exist, but is just an illusion, however illusions require consciousness, then the claim leads to a contradiction ("Reductio ad absurdum"), and hence the claim is false.
there is no physical mechanism for consciousness
If there's no physical mechanism, how/why did it evolve ?
Do you know that it evolved? Claiming that everything must have evolved is nonsense. Science does not make such a claim. It claims that our bodies have evolved, and that is a very well founded claim given genetics. It is not a 100% thing though, more like 95%. (Not predicting a "God" or such nonsense here, but some other mechanisms could have had major impact.)
Now, we do not have any such data for consciousness. We simply do not know how it works at all and what we have in Physics currently does not contain any mechanism for it. We also have so far failed to detect any "DNA" or other signatures in it that would indicate it is mostly inherited. Claiming that consciousness "evolved" is not scientifically sound at this time as there are no actual observation to support that.
As Physics is very well understood at this time, this is a major problem and the only scientifically valid answer to how consciousness or intelligence works is "We do not know". The question is open.
Actually, terminology has shifted. These used to be called "cognitive systems", now they are called "weak AI". Weak AI is not intelligent, but it aims to duplicate things that can be done using intelligence by use of automation. As such, it is a proper area of AI research. I agree that the terminology is not that well chosen and I blame the incompetence of the press that still claims computers are "intelligent" all the time.
On the risk of repeating myself: Weak AI cannot learn from mistakes. Not possible. The best it can do is request a classification of a sample from en entity with actual intelligence (only ones available at this time: humans), add that to the training set and run the training again.
The problem is that an AI has no concept of a human-made mistake or a "prank". A human actually does a complex risk-analysis and risk-acceptance process here and there is no way that weak AI will ever be able to do that. Best we can hope for is that things like this get added to the map.
Indeed. Humans are running quite a few things using mostly automation. Actually thinking about things takes longer and usually the automation has already started to take action when you, for example, consciously realize a situation is not what your reflexes think it it and then need to stop it. The thing that makes human automation better is not that it is fundamentally better, but that it is using supervised learning with an actual intelligence pre-classifying things and making sure it it is not off. Most AI these days is being trained unsupervised (because labeling everything in the training set is expensive and potentially difficult) and that cannot deal with "tricky" data.
Of course, when you have a "WTF is that sign"-moment, you take a bit longer, but you will do things like plausibility checks ("can there be a stop sign here") and risk evaluation. Since automation cannot do that, in order to prevent it from doing emergency measures (full stop + call for help) all the time, its threshold for detecting things are out of whack needs to be higher than in a human being and that contributes to misidentification of things.
Since you obviously are a racist, there really is no point in explaining to you how your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You do not have the mental capabilities to recognize actual facts.
And that does what exactly for MS updates that check your CPU before installing?
"Weak" AI (and that is what we are talking about here) cannot "learn from mistakes". That skill is reserved for actual intelligence and "strong" AI. Strong AI has the little problem that it does not exist as it is currently completely unknown how it could be created, despite about half a century of intense research.
That is nonsense. AIs have never surpassed human performance (of course, you always need to compare to a human expert) and there is no rational reason to expect that they ever will. Incidentally, said "great" model is currently completely out of reach, even for relatively simple things like driving a car (which almost all humans can learn to do, i.e. it does not require much). The best we will get is a model that solves a lot of standard situations from a catalog and appeals to human help in the rest. That is pretty useful and will make things like self-driving cars a reality, but some things that smart human beings can do will likely remain out of reach for a long time and quite possibly forever.
The thing is that many people will actually become obsolete, if not quite so soon. The problem is that while technically they are intelligent people, they do not really use their intelligence, and that makes their jobs accessible to automation. Of course, those that actually do use their intelligence will not get replaced successfully anytime soon and quite possible not ever. The thing the public does not understand is that at this time we have absolutely no idea how intelligence is created. There is not even a mathematical theory that would work reasonably well in a physical system in this universe.
For example, automated theorem proving (which is one of the few things that may be seen as actually creating "intelligence") is so limited in performance, that making the whole universe into a gigantic computer, it would still be less capable as a smart human being. As a result, we do not have any clue how humans do it and hence cannot emulate that process. There are a few rather strong hints (consistently ignored by the AI fanatics) that things may be a lot more complicated. For example, we do only observe actual intelligence in connection with consciousness. Seeing them as separate is hence not a scientifically sound approach. And we have even less of an idea what consciousness is. According to the current scientific state-of-the-art, there is no physical mechanism for consciousness, yet it clearly exists. Of course, said AI fanatics will say nonsense like "consciousness is an illusion" (If so, who has the illusion? Illusions require consciousness!) and the like. That is just a pathetic attempt to cover up how tiny their actual knowledge is in comparison to their grand claims.
Weak AI is characterized by not being intelligent. It is merely statistical classification, algorithmic planning and things like that. It has the advantage that (unlike "strong" AI) it is actually available. But it has the disadvantage that is has zero understanding of what it is doing. As strong AI is not even on the distant horizon, in fact it is unclear whether it is possible to create it at all (despite what a lot of morons that have never understood current research in the field or have not even looked at it like to claim), weak AI is all we will have for the foreseeable future. This means that we have to fake a lot of things that even the tiniest bit of actual intelligence could easily do by itself.
Of course, weak AI is still massively useful, but confusing it with actual intelligence is dangerous. It is however noting any actual expert will ever do. They know. It is just the stupid public that does not get it at all. As usual.
But that is just the thing: If this is aimed at translation or text analysis, then this is the right date to train it on and "fixing" it actually breaks things. Translation requires accuracy and part of any good translation is guessing right. PC is just lying about how things really are and that may be fatal when translating or analyzing things.
Now, I do not claim this is a good thing, but lying to your statistical classifier during training is about as stupid as it gets.