Oh? And where do you take that certainty? Because Science very much does not say "we are machines". Science says "we have no clue how this works". Physicalism is religion, not Science. It has no scientific basis.
That is not what is happening here. You just regurgitate the propaganda and you try to elevate yourself on the cheap (and in an utterly despicable fashion) by implicitly claiming you are "hard working", while others are "lazy". Incidentally, "hard work" is in the process of becoming utterly worthless from an utilitarian point-of-view and so are you. "Smart work" will live a bit longer, but eventually we are all going to the "lazy" state, with a very small number of exceptions and you will not be one of them. That frightens people like you so deeply that you put your head in the sand and ignore what cannot be ignored anymore. Because the ugly truth is that you have little to contribute and that all your "hard work" results in very little productivity.
You actually have to pretty much "know" nothing for machine translations, as machines cannot do that. Machines can do rules (id precisely enough defined), they cannot do understanding. This is what will keep automated translations on a low quality level permanently. High quality translations will remain a domain of smart humans with a deep understanding of both source and target culture.
The funny thing is that the only situation where machine translations can go beyond that is actually the giant look-up table as that can (to a limited degree) encode the understanding of a human being. Step outside of that and the translation becomes bereft of any insight into what is being translated.
Because that has been the killer for all kinds of implants interfacing nerves so far.
It is however good to know that if electrode endurance gets solved, there will be some really useful things that will become viable outside of limited experiments.
"AI" has failed to deliver on grande promises for half a century now. Nobody of those deciding about money seems to notice, so yes, they will be fine. The failure will continue though for a long, long time and maybe forever.
What has delivered a lot of results is classical, dumb automation. Calling it "AI" is just a marketing lie that seems to work well though.
Indeed. But they are not the only ones pushing things that inspire humans but are technological bullshit. Just think of flying cars, quantum computers, and the whole endless list of persistent failures along the same lines. There are other projects that are very long time (fusion, self-driving cars, etc.), but the are making persistent and meaningful advances all along the path. This stuff here does not. It just goes from meaningless stunt to meaningless stunt, because they have nothing.
Nobody knows how intelligence, insight and consciousness works either. Not even the neuro-"scientists" that like so much to claim otherwise, but pathetically fail when put to any real test.
Indeed. The thing with automated translation is that it does not require an independent world-model. The world model and the placement of objects, attributes and actions in it is already contained in the input. That is the only reason machines can actually do translation better than by using a gigantic look-up table.
What if we rephrased the question, e.g., "What would an AI need to be able to acquire grammar and semantics by being trained on natural language sentences (the way human children are)?"
Simple: Actual intelligence. "AI" is a marketing term. No "AI" these days and for a long time to come (possibly forever) has actual intelligence. All we have is mindless automation that is not capable of insight.
The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view and may well eventually lead to better treatments. They are irrelevant only for direct risk management.
What is not a different discussion is that your "Creator", if existent, bears full, unlimited responsibility for the result. With unlimited power comes unlimited responsibility. And do not give me this "works in mysterious ways" crap. There really is only a choice between "fuckup" and "asshole" here.
Still possible. It would obviously have to be a malicious, detail-obsessed and sadistic superbeing. Of course, the quality of the result rather strongly indicates that the biological part of human existence is the result of a typical evolutionary optimization process. These universally deliver mediocre or worse results. Their main advantage is that the can be run unsupervised once the conditions have been set. Although it looks now very much like the human race does not have effective ways to restrict its own growth and hence will wipe itself out and that the actual use of available intelligence in individuals is not enough to stop that. Hence this would be an optimization result in the "failure" category. As it has taken over the process, the way to deal with it is a reset and restart.
These do not do the inferior "deep" learning. They do proper learning where the neural network is designed for the task. Of course they perform better.
Is that it is not any "bandwidth problem". It is that deep learning is actually pretty bad at solving classification problems. These are just some more people trying to get rich before the ugly truth becomes impossible to ignore.
You know, those were I need a steel bottle and noisy generator to use compressed air as energy source? No? So maybe do _not_ forget about new battery tech?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh? And where do you take that certainty? Because Science very much does not say "we are machines". Science says "we have no clue how this works". Physicalism is religion, not Science. It has no scientific basis.
So malevolent and dishonest? I like it.
Indeed. Thanks for the reference. As so often, the classical references are far better what you can do by yourself.
That is not what is happening here. You just regurgitate the propaganda and you try to elevate yourself on the cheap (and in an utterly despicable fashion) by implicitly claiming you are "hard working", while others are "lazy". Incidentally, "hard work" is in the process of becoming utterly worthless from an utilitarian point-of-view and so are you. "Smart work" will live a bit longer, but eventually we are all going to the "lazy" state, with a very small number of exceptions and you will not be one of them. That frightens people like you so deeply that you put your head in the sand and ignore what cannot be ignored anymore. Because the ugly truth is that you have little to contribute and that all your "hard work" results in very little productivity.
You actually have to pretty much "know" nothing for machine translations, as machines cannot do that. Machines can do rules (id precisely enough defined), they cannot do understanding. This is what will keep automated translations on a low quality level permanently. High quality translations will remain a domain of smart humans with a deep understanding of both source and target culture.
The funny thing is that the only situation where machine translations can go beyond that is actually the giant look-up table as that can (to a limited degree) encode the understanding of a human being. Step outside of that and the translation becomes bereft of any insight into what is being translated.
This is not communism. This is an attempt to keep capitalism going under changing circumstances.
Because that has been the killer for all kinds of implants interfacing nerves so far.
It is however good to know that if electrode endurance gets solved, there will be some really useful things that will become viable outside of limited experiments.
AGI, also known as "strong AI", "true AI", or "the AI we do not have and have not clue how to make or whether that is even possible".
"AI" has failed to deliver on grande promises for half a century now. Nobody of those deciding about money seems to notice, so yes, they will be fine. The failure will continue though for a long, long time and maybe forever.
What has delivered a lot of results is classical, dumb automation. Calling it "AI" is just a marketing lie that seems to work well though.
One difference though: it'll learn much faster than a human child.
There is absolutely no reason to expect that.
Indeed. But they are not the only ones pushing things that inspire humans but are technological bullshit. Just think of flying cars, quantum computers, and the whole endless list of persistent failures along the same lines. There are other projects that are very long time (fusion, self-driving cars, etc.), but the are making persistent and meaningful advances all along the path. This stuff here does not. It just goes from meaningless stunt to meaningless stunt, because they have nothing.
Nobody knows how intelligence, insight and consciousness works either. Not even the neuro-"scientists" that like so much to claim otherwise, but pathetically fail when put to any real test.
Indeed. The thing with automated translation is that it does not require an independent world-model. The world model and the placement of objects, attributes and actions in it is already contained in the input. That is the only reason machines can actually do translation better than by using a gigantic look-up table.
What if we rephrased the question, e.g., "What would an AI need to be able to acquire grammar and semantics by being trained on natural language sentences (the way human children are)?"
Simple: Actual intelligence. "AI" is a marketing term. No "AI" these days and for a long time to come (possibly forever) has actual intelligence. All we have is mindless automation that is not capable of insight.
The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view and may well eventually lead to better treatments. They are irrelevant only for direct risk management.
I don't think so. That would need individual verification. Surgeries get botched.
What is not a different discussion is that your "Creator", if existent, bears full, unlimited responsibility for the result. With unlimited power comes unlimited responsibility. And do not give me this "works in mysterious ways" crap. There really is only a choice between "fuckup" and "asshole" here.
Still possible. It would obviously have to be a malicious, detail-obsessed and sadistic superbeing. Of course, the quality of the result rather strongly indicates that the biological part of human existence is the result of a typical evolutionary optimization process. These universally deliver mediocre or worse results. Their main advantage is that the can be run unsupervised once the conditions have been set. Although it looks now very much like the human race does not have effective ways to restrict its own growth and hence will wipe itself out and that the actual use of available intelligence in individuals is not enough to stop that. Hence this would be an optimization result in the "failure" category. As it has taken over the process, the way to deal with it is a reset and restart.
These do not do the inferior "deep" learning. They do proper learning where the neural network is designed for the task. Of course they perform better.
Hahahahahaha, dream on.
Is that it is not any "bandwidth problem". It is that deep learning is actually pretty bad at solving classification problems. These are just some more people trying to get rich before the ugly truth becomes impossible to ignore.
When anybody gets to Mars with a possibility to get back, nobody alive today will still be alive.
And maybe that is realistic. May still be too soon though.
You know, those were I need a steel bottle and noisy generator to use compressed air as energy source? No? So maybe do _not_ forget about new battery tech?
Makes sense.