|
|
|
|
|
|
by phist_mcgee
2157 days ago
|
|
|
It reminds me of that pithy remark by someone I read a while ago which was (paraphrased): "Any time someone pushes forward AI as a field, people will almost alway remark: 'but that's not real AI.'" It's true, the mundanity quickly settles in, and we look to the next 'impossible hurdle' and disregard the fact that only a few years ago, natural language generation like this was impossible. |
|
|
This statement reveals a widespread, and in my opinion, a not-entirely-correct, assumption that increases in the ML field means we're actually pushing forward on AI. It also implies a belief that the pre-1970s people were somehow less right than the 2000s+ ML crowd, when a lot of ML's success is related to compute power that simply did not exist in the 1970s.
ML computational machines to transform inputs->outputs are great, but there's no compelling reason to believe they're intrinsic to intelligence, as opposed to functioning more like an organ.
We might be making great image classifier "eyes", or spam-filtering "noses", or music-generating "ears". But it's not clear to me that will incrementally get us closer to an intelligent "brain", even if all those tools are necessary to feed into one.