this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
577 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
58115 readers
3975 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And you believe and think that why? Most of us criticizing do that, because we have some idea what machine learning is and what it simply doesn't solve. It's not a hard to get knowledge.
I think it's unreasonable to state that it won't happen within our lifetime. That's hopefully 60+ years away for me. It's a long time for computing and general AI development to advance. Just look at how much has happened in the technology field for the past 30 years.
"It always seems impossible until it's done." - Nelson Mandela
Sorry, but this is again abstractions and philosophy, in the genre of Steve Jobs themed motivational texts. Which I hate with boredom (get tired quickly of hating with passion).
Many things have been called "AI" and many will be. I'm certain some will bring very important change. And those may even use ML somewhere. For classification and clustering parts most likely, and maybe even extrapolation, but that'd be subject to a system of symbolic logic working above them at least, and they'll have to find a way of adding entropy.
What they call "AI" now definitely won't. Fundamentally.
Quoting that one guy who hasn't been hanged\shot\beheaded while many many many more other people trying the same have been. Survivor's error and such.
They don’t have to be any good, they just have to be significantly better than humans. Right now they’re… probably about average, there’s plenty of drunk or stupid humans bringing the average down.
It’s true that isn’t good enough, unlike humans, self driving cars are will be judged together, so people will focus on their dumbest antics, but once their average is significantly better than human average, that will start to overrule the individual examples.
Right now they are not that at all.
When people say neural nets are unable to reason, they don't mean something fuzzy-cloudy like normies do, which can be rebutted by some other fuzzy-cloudy stuff. They literally mean that neural nets are unable to reason. They are not capable of logic.
Reasoning is obviously useful, not convinced it’s required to be a good driver. In fact most driving decisions must be done rapidly, I doubt humans can be described as “reasoning” when we’re just reacting to events. Decisions that take long enough could be handed to a human (“should we rush for the ferry, or divert for the bridge?”). It’s only the middling bit between where we will maintain this big advantage (“that truck ahead is bouncing around, I don’t like how the load is secured so I’m going to back off”). that’s a big advantage, but how much of our time is spent with our minds fully focused and engaged anyway? Once we’re on autopilot, is there much reasoning going on?
Not that I think this will be quick, I expect at least another couple of decades before self driving cars can even start to compete with us outside of specific curated situations. And once they do they’ll continue to fuck up royally whenever the situation is weird and outside their training, causing big news stories. The key question will be whether they can compete with humans on average by outperforming us in quick responses and in consistently not getting distracted/tired/drunk.