might be a selling point for their users
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:21 (nine years ago)
but I wouldn't know since I don't use Google lol
So now the bar is "smarter than teams of malware developers?"
― schwantz, Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:23 (nine years ago)
I'm just saying that it's hard for me not to be impressed when I type in a couple of words, and within 8ms Google returns the page/video/news article I was looking for.
― schwantz, Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:24 (nine years ago)
Okay, so you're a rocket scientistThat don't impress me, MuskSo you got the brain but have you got the touchDon't get me wrong, yeah I think SpaceX's alrightBut that won't keep me warm in the middle of the nightThat don't impress me, Musk
― I expel a minor traveler's flatulence (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:35 (nine years ago)
lol
― conditional random jepsen (seandalai), Friday, 29 January 2016 00:33 (nine years ago)
otm
― bicyclescope (mattresslessness), Friday, 29 January 2016 00:36 (nine years ago)
i'm going to read this thread properly because i strongly suspect you are all wrong
but andrew ng's 'worrying about evil AI is like worrying about overpopulation on mars' is i think i useful way of thinking about how productive this debate is right now
(although i heard that at NIPS last month he changed this to 'worrying about overpopulation on alpha centauri')
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 29 January 2016 15:51 (nine years ago)
glad to see the string theory experts posting here
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 29 January 2016 15:53 (nine years ago)
i openly will attest to being wrong
― μpright mammal (mh), Friday, 29 January 2016 15:58 (nine years ago)
ng otm
― conditional random jepsen (seandalai), Friday, 29 January 2016 16:09 (nine years ago)
string.h theory experts
― Kanye West Thread and what to do in it (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 29 January 2016 16:52 (nine years ago)
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/refugee-or-terrorist-ibm-thinks-its-software-has-answer/125484/
Borene was careful to indicate that the hypothetical score was not an absolute indicator of guilt or innocence. “It’s like a credit score."
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 29 January 2016 22:02 (nine years ago)
http://cs.jhu.edu/~jason/tutorials/ml-simplex.png
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 29 January 2016 22:03 (nine years ago)
yep m/l
― conditional random jepsen (seandalai), Saturday, 30 January 2016 03:06 (nine years ago)
caek who do you work for that you write reports on probabilistic programming etc (if you can say)
― conditional random jepsen (seandalai), Saturday, 30 January 2016 03:07 (nine years ago)
Can't say but it's fun. Cnns, rnns, prob programming, all that good stuff.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 30 January 2016 15:22 (nine years ago)
Trump campaign then?
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:34 (nine years ago)
ha no that's this genius actually https://twitter.com/witolddc
http://www.fastcompany.com/3055702/data-pros-doubt-trumps-ground-game-in-iowa-will-succeed-if-cult-of-personality-fails
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 30 January 2016 17:37 (nine years ago)
Yoshua Bengio talking sense:
The thing I’m more worried about, in a foreseeable future, is not computers taking over the world. I’m more worried about misuse of AI. Things like bad military uses, manipulating people through really smart advertising; also, the social impact, like many people losing their jobs. Society needs to get together and come up with a collective response, and not leave it to the law of the jungle to sort things out.
http://www.technologyreview.com/qa/546301/will-machines-eliminate-us/
― conditional random jepsen (seandalai), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 00:39 (nine years ago)
yup.
i tell anyone who will listen to read section A of this article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2477899
this is so much more than killer robots, and it's happening right now
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 01:56 (nine years ago)
no way
― bicyclescope (mattresslessness), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 04:51 (nine years ago)
Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that they eliminate human biases from the decision-making process.
oh come on anyone who does that sucks, this thesis is a given
― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 04:52 (nine years ago)
"technology is a social phenomenon and it might have not-good consequences." kind of lightweight and myopic given that sts and actor-network theory have been kicking around since the 70s... xp
― bicyclescope (mattresslessness), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 04:57 (nine years ago)
lol yeah anyone trying to claim technology has nothing to do with morals and is a pure science, as if it's a natural phenomena and descended from pure logic, they are the ones to be wary of
― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 05:00 (nine years ago)
yes and these ppl exist is my point
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 05:01 (nine years ago)
i mean apologies if the claims in that paper are self evident to you, but they're not self-evident to 90% of data scientists
fair
― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 05:02 (nine years ago)
Google’s AI beats world Go champion in first of five matches
― Half-baked profundities. Self-referential smirkiness (Bob Six), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 08:24 (nine years ago)
Failing the Third Machine Age
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 20:36 (nine years ago)
^from 2014, btw, so possibly already consumed by some
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 20:39 (nine years ago)
Make a list of shit nobody actually believes and then cherry pick quotes by a wide range of credentialed and non-credentialed so-called smart people and hey look a listicle!!! my headhttp://gizmodo.com/everything-you-know-about-artificial-intelligence-is-wr-1764020220
Related, and way more fun: http://www.clickhole.com/clickventure/youre-computer-can-you-pass-turing-test-4009#27,
― El Tomboto, Monday, 14 March 2016 17:30 (nine years ago)
ugh, the structure of that gizmodo thing, with "Myth" set against "Reality", only by "reality" i suppose they mean "fact", which they then support with...opinions? Myth: Someone thinks something might happen in the future. Reality: someone else thinks that it might not.
wtf
also they forgot to edit it. like near the end, with this quote:
“Over the next couple of decades AI is going to destroy many jobs, but this is a good thing,” Miller told Gizmodo.
who is Miller? they never say. it is a mystery
― Karl Malone, Monday, 14 March 2016 17:54 (nine years ago)
perhaps the author was distressed because his job was being destroyed as he wrote the article. and maybe the AI wrote the bit about it being a good thing.
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 14 March 2016 18:12 (nine years ago)
sorry, but let me lightly edit to fit the format:
MYTH: perhaps the author was distressed because his job was being destroyed as he wrote the article
REALITY: maybe the AI wrote the bit about it being a good thing
― Karl Malone, Monday, 14 March 2016 18:14 (nine years ago)
computers can play go now, I guess
― μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 14 March 2016 18:51 (nine years ago)
truly the end is near
― Οὖτις, Monday, 14 March 2016 18:53 (nine years ago)
people are learning new strategies from computers, in a 2500 year old game. sounds like the beginning to me!
― μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 14 March 2016 18:56 (nine years ago)
look at these robots falling over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TaYhjpOfo
― Karl Malone, Monday, 14 March 2016 18:59 (nine years ago)
look at these stupid babies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9nWOaDit5w
― Karl Malone, Monday, 14 March 2016 19:04 (nine years ago)
Those robots have far less sophisticated sensors and control mechanisms than the babies do. A baby can learn to walk without constantly falling over in a matter of a few weeks, without being torn down, re-designed, refitted or rebuilt. But the robots will probably need another 20 years, endless redesigns and hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding before they can open doors or climb over obstacles.
It seems to me both perfectly understandable and mostly unjustifiable to try to make robots replicate human form with human physical capabilities. We already have humans for that. AI is always more successful when it focusses on narrowly specific jobs and builds on that capability by increments.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:29 (nine years ago)
boston dynamics robots walk better than any babies I know
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:35 (nine years ago)
Do they really though? I always wonder when watching those vids how many takes of each task they've done.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:44 (nine years ago)
perhaps you were c+p'ing something as a joke, but here is the video of a robot doing all of that right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:44 (nine years ago)
xp i don't know. tbh, it can be fun to be cool skeptical guy at the robot conference, but you probably need an accent and a cane to pull it off.
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:48 (nine years ago)
and maybe some highly cited papers
― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 14 March 2016 19:49 (nine years ago)
"A baby can learn to walk without constantly falling over in a matter of a few weeks, without being torn down, re-designed, refitted or rebuilt."
This inspired some disturbing visualizations
― Evan, Monday, 14 March 2016 19:52 (nine years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Hu6J3pEwQ
― emil.y, Monday, 14 March 2016 19:55 (nine years ago)
In 2016, I find it more impressive for humanity that one person can still beat (in at least 1 out of 4 games) a computer program running on 1,920 CPUS and 280 GPUs at a board game.
― o. nate, Monday, 14 March 2016 20:11 (nine years ago)
Those Boston Dynamics robots are pretty impressive. Quite an accomplishment tbf, but any minimum wage 16 year old could still run rings around them. Among other things, I noticed most of the objects they interacted with, like the doors and boxes, had bold black-and-white designs placed on them to assist their sensors.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 14 March 2016 20:12 (nine years ago)