| Algorithms made to imitate humans exhibit human weaknesses. What a terrible unexpected outcome! I love how the article is written but it is literally proving the opposite of it's premise. Playbook: 1) you want to "disprove" some version of AI. Doesn't really matter what. Take a problem humans face. For example, an almost total inability to follow simple rules for a long time to make a calculation. It's almost impossible to get a human to do this. Check if AI algorithms, which are algorithms made to imitate humans have this same problem. Now of course, in practice if they indeed have that problem, that is actually a success: algorithm made to imitate humans ... imitates humans succesfully, strengths and weaknesses! But of course, if you find it, you describe it as total proof this algorithm is worthless. An easy source for these problems is of course computers. Anything humans use computers for ... it's because humans suck at doing it themselves. Keeping track of history or facts. Exact calculation. Symbolic computation. Logic (ie. exactly correct answers). More generally math and even positive sciences as a whole are an endless supply of such problems. 2) you want to "prove" some version of AI. Find something humans are good at. Point out AIs do this. Humans are social animals so how about influencing other humans? From convincing your boss, or on a larger scale using a social network to win an election, right up to actual seduction. Use what humans use to do it, of course (ie. be inaccurate, lie, ...) Point out what a great success this is. How magical it is that machines can now do this. 3) you want to make a boatload of money Take something humans are good at but hate, have an AI do it for money. |