|
Top-level
 @abreaction Better? Yes. Sure. “Better” in the sense of “fundamentally different by nature?” I really, really doubt that. The problems I mention in this post are •intrinsic• problems, baked into the nature of the tech: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/111953441495417192 They don’t vanish just because the tech gets better, no more than making a car go faster can make it play the piano. 4 comments
@failedLyndonLaRouchite @inthehands That's true. My napkin calculations say that AI is going to require lots of little rules and modifications to work, and it will plateau at some point, but it's going to be very effective for certain repetitive jobs. I think they most want it for manufacturing. Could be really useful to have robots that notice anomalies and can correct them. @abreaction @failedLyndonLaRouchite @inthehands That is a much harder, more expensive problem than "improvements in AI" - the flaws in AI often boil down to "failure to correctly ground the concept in the real world". The model hallucinates because without grounding that understands the concepts of "food" and "color" as subjective experiences, "blue" and "blueberry" are almost the same. Robots *require* grounding to connect their actions to their task. @robotistry @failedLyndonLaRouchite @inthehands If the robots are doing a specific task, they can be grounded pretty easily with source data. This is where ML excels: show it something done right 10,000 times and it can figure out roughly what "right" is, at least enough to do it right 99.99% of the time. |
Gregory's Server
@inthehands @abreaction
looking at the truly mind bending progress in computers in the last 50 years, it would be , IMO, a very very brave person willing to predict if in the next 10 or 20 years, that AI is a flying car or something truly radical