Bass related AI failure.

[prowla]

52 minutes ago, zbd1960 said:

As a now retired IT guy I get frustrated with the use of the term "AI". The media, inevitably, misuses the term, and PR/marketing departments hype it death.

 

In most cases, AI is a series of algorithms backed up by a large database and a rule set. It is not 'intelligent' it's just quick at searching. We've got the same issue with AI that we've had with previous technology shifts. In the 50s everything was 'atomic' or 'rocket', in the 60s we start to see "Twenty-first century", in the 80s everything had to be labelled 'digital', in the late 90s it was "e-...." and then with Apple it became "i-....". Now it's "AI".

 

The stuff it's good at is pattern recognition and it's going to be a big help with processing scans for cancers etc.

 

The big area of concern at the moment is no-one has worked out how or what needs regulating about it. As with any technology there is potential for harm as well as good. The issue at the moment is 'deep fakes'.  

 

As someone who works in IT, I agree.

Pattern recognition algorithms and wordings arranged according to syntactic rules but with no comprehension of the meaning.

There is no intelligence in an algorithm.

The big danger is if companies use "AI" output as if it were fact and without need for scrutiny.

If you're going to scan the internet for the input then there's a lot of misinformation there.

If you're not going to validate the training data and feedback loop then the system will likely reinforce incorrect content and conclusions.

A recent example is Apple's fake BBC news story.

[Downunderwonder]

40 minutes ago, prowla said:

It doesn't see strings - it sees lines, so the binding might confuse it.

That's understandable, but not the three tuning pegs aka shiny things at the end of the long lined thing one of the wriggly things attached to the top of the centre blob thing rests on.

[zbd1960]

9 hours ago, prowla said:

 

As someone who works in IT, I agree.

Pattern recognition algorithms and wordings arranged according to syntactic rules but with no comprehension of the meaning.

There is no intelligence in an algorithm.

The big danger is if companies use "AI" output as if it were fact and without need for scrutiny.

If you're going to scan the internet for the input then there's a lot of misinformation there.

If you're not going to validate the training data and feedback loop then the system will likely reinforce incorrect content and conclusions.

A recent example is Apple's fake BBC news story.

Yep. It's just another version of management's tendency to take "the computers says..." uninformed approach. I worked in data warehousing for quite a while. Idiots in suits would write and run their own queries and just assume that the 'answer' was right, without understanding the data. Understanding is crucial. I had to explain to one genius that his query's output was a heap of steaming ordure. I had to point out that according to his query the number of active customers exceeded the population of the UK.    

[TimR]

There's nothing Intelligent about machine learning.

 

If we knew what intelligence was, we would just program the massive biological computers nature has provided, properly from birth. 

 

There will be no artificial intelligence until we know what real intelligence is.