If a process
has patterns it CAN be computerized.
For that 1. an intelligent subject develops an algorithm
2. then writes a code.
Today, AI can
partially replace part 2 by being trained, but
still ALL intelligent work – pattern analytics,
algorithm development, including the one for training AI - falls on humans. AI is not more than a dog trained do tricks.
Imagine, AI intelligent as Einstein was developed and left in a jungle with monkeys. All it’ll learn is “monkey business”.
AI developers deliberately ignore this
fact.
So
far my "interventions" into the field of AI development have been
sporadic, and the full picture comes with the reading of all major pieces
on the matter on the designated page:
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
FYI: If you would like to find a publication with the exactly same statement but coming from an AI guru, you may want to check this link: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/560675/
Some
quotes: “All the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just
curve fitting,” and “artificial
intelligence has been handicapped by an incomplete understanding of what
intelligence really is.”
Appendix I: The path toward AHLI
Click here to jump directly to Appendix I.
Appendix II: What is common sense?
Click here to jump directly to Appendix II.
Lately, Google Assistant mimicking a person has given a new boost to speculations about the role of AI, and how close we are to the point when “AI will take over the world”, well, at least the business world.
The physiological or technological basis of intelligence is the existence of hierarchies of interconnected patter recognition systems.
Artificial
intelligence
is just an artificially manufactured system which possesses intelligence.
In “The
Dawn of The New AI Era.”, and then in “Who will train our “artificial puppies”? But more
importantly – who will train the trainers?”, I stated that we have
entered the new phase in the development of AI field. Now, in parallel with the
continuous basic (a.k.a. fundamental) research in AI, the field of practical
applications of AI will be rapidly growing. In that new field, AI developers
will not be as important any more as experienced
AI trainers.
In “Is
Artificial Intelligence Already Actual Intelligence?” and then in “Will Artificial
Intelligence Save, Replace or even Affect Education Practices? (a venture
capitalist’s view)”, I discussed the current state of AI, and why some
people in the field overestimate its potential influence on education (because they, like many others, have a very primitive view on education: BTW, why do we expect that someone who wrote a successful app, or sold a successful product is an expert in everything else? Especially those who surround themselves with people who always agree with them?).
In this publication I would like to offer an additional and specific
reason for why AI, in its current state of development, is not even close to
the intelligence of a human baby (and what should be done to bridge the gap). currently, and for decades to come, there is no such thing as actual artificial intelligence, there is only various computer software with limited self-adjusting abilities. If someone points at a gorilla and says "It has two legs, tow arms, tow eyes - it is a human!" we know it is a joke - at best. But that's exactly what is happening now with AI. "This system can recognize and emulates some patterns, and even makes some adjustments to how it does it - it is intelligent!" Well, in the same sens as an ameba - yes, it is intelligent.
But first, a little bit of history.
Initially, the term “Artificial Intelligence” was used to describe
machines that could act like people. One of the best representations of AI in its original sense is both
terminators in the “Terminator
2” movie (the roots of which can be traced to many science fiction stories,
e.g. “I, robot”).
When scientists started developing systems which could have
some features similar to those which humans have, they were coding complicated
algorithms which would let a computer to conduct some of the human-type
actions, like, recognizing an object, recognizing a sound, moving artificial
limbs in a specific way, producing human-like sounds. Everything what a computer
did was first designed and then encoded by a team of professionals, and that
team was absolutely and completely responsible for every action of a computer/device/robot/system.
Everything what a computer did right
was initially envisioned and programmed by humans, and anything unexpected done
by a computer was wrong.
No one would call those systems “intelligent”.
At some point, scientists realized that writing more and
more complicated algorithms, which would check more and more possibilities
before making a decision, has its limits.
The next idea was “simple”.
In order to mimic the intelligent actions of a human, an
artificial system needs to mimic the structure of the organ which is
responsible for the intelligent actions of a human, i.e. a brain.
Hence, the attention had shifted to neural networks,
but made artificially.
Initially, the behavior of those networks was also absolutely
defined by people.
The breakthrough came when an artificial neural network became
capable of learning without interference of a human (after the initial training).
This is where we are today.
Existing methods, approaches, technologies, like, “deep learning”, “machine learning”, “supervised learning”,
“unsupervised
learning”, “reinforcement
learning” all based on various types of “data mining”, with a following
training
process (also, they all have large overlapping areas).
The progress in AI development is astonishing, no doubt.
However, on the road from the 1956 meeting at the
Dartmouth College to the latest Google presentation, the meaning of the term “Artificial Intelligence” has changed.
Initially, the “study
of artificial intelligence” meant the
study of “every aspect of learning
or any other feature of intelligence” […] “that a machine can be made to
simulate it. An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language,
form abstractions and concepts, solve
kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves.” This
study will need “to discuss computers, natural language
processing, neural networks, theory of computation,
abstraction and creativity” (all highlighting in the quotes above
is mine, V.V.).
However, over time,
such concepts as “abstractions”, “concepts”, “creativity” have been excluded
from the meaning of AI. What’s
left was – and still is – just “pattern recognition”.
Imagine, that you
decided to improve a basic corkscrew. And you did! And you named your new model
“The Ultimate Drilling Machine”.
This is not exactly what happened in the field of
Artificial Intelligence, but very similar to it (I hope you get the idea, which
is gross exaggeration of the reality).
Currently, the most
impressive features of AI are those which imitate human actions.
AI can recognize
sounds, symbols, objects, and can mimic speech, movements, even some emotions.
But so can animals.
Currently, AI is on
its way to become a mouse, or a dog. Soon, what AI will be able to do in homes
or businesses is more or less what a mouse or a dog could do, when properly
trained.
Following down this
road, eventually current AI will be as powerful as a cat, then a chimpanzee,
then a lion, or a gorilla (just to illustrate an idea).
Current AI may become
very powerful and helpful, or very powerful and dangerous.
But NOT because it will decide to be good or bad.
No.
Because people who will be using it, will be
using it for good or for bad.
Like a hammer that
can be used as a blunt weapon.
Like a bulldozer that
can be converted into a tank.
Or like a dog, or bear,
or a lion, or a gorilla which can be trained to hunt and to hurt people, or to
find and help them.
But don’t expect that artificial human-like
intelligence, or, AHLI, will be hanging around any soon.
Naturally, two
questions immediately arise after this statement.
1. Why?
And.
2. What can be done
about it?
Short answers to
these questions are:
1. Because no one
knows how the structure of a human brain is related to the existence of AHLI;
no one knows how AHLI had been developed, what was the evolutionary path which
had led to its existence. The whole science of intelligence is in its infancy.
Scientists even don’t have yet a commonly accepted definition of intelligence!
And.
2. We have to intensify the research in the
field of human intelligence
(maybe, another workshop at the Dartmouth College?).
Basically, we need to
learn as deep as possible:
1. How, from the moment
they are born, humans become intelligent?
2. What factors
affect human intelligence (positively and negatively)?
3. How does the development
of the structure of a human brain correlate with the development of human
intelligence?
4. What is the
structural difference between a brain of an intelligent human being and of an
animal, that is responsible for the existence of human-level intelligence, or
HLI?
And that is just the
bare minimum (however, having a research entity devoted
to those studies could significantly advance the research).
In parallel, we will
need to study how to build artificial systems which structure would resemble
the structure of an intelligent brain, how to make this system function, how to
train it.
Scientist tried to
invent a system which would resemble a bird. They had failed. Instead they
invented a system which just imitated a bird (an airplane), and succeeded.
Following this
approach, scientists tried to invent a system which structure would not be similar to the structure of a
brain, but which would function as such.
They had failed.
Eventually they turned
their focus toward systems mimicking a brain – neural networks – and they
succeeded.
But the current
neural networks – when compared with even a brain of a mouse – are absolutely trivial.
The question is – in order
to achieve the abilities of human intelligence, should new, future, more
advanced neural networks “simply” have more elements, or the whole structure of
those networks should be very different from the current ones?
This situation should
not be an issue to any religious person, because if God would wanted to create
an artificial intelligence, he or she would most probably had it already done.
And if God didn’t do it, hence humans can’t, no matter how complicated the
future neural networks could be.
Everyone else who does not
believe in God should turn to Charles Darwin.
The answers to
questions like “How human intelligence came about?”, and “What is the
difference in the structure between a human brain and an animal brain, which
makes humans humanly intelligent?” should lie in the theory of the evolution.
A very helpful hint
lies in the fact that the development of an individual human being has a resemblance
with the development of the whole human race (or, “human ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis in
abbreviated form”: the quote is from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-6347-0_4).
That is why the future of AHLI is in the hands of the experts
in human intelligence, and not in the hands of the experts in (current) AI.
The vast majority of the experts in the field of “artificial intelligence” are
walking (or racing) toward the development on an “artificial gorilla”. That is
where the money goes.
No one is really close yet to the development of AHLI (top AI developers/promoters reported to the Congress that AHLI will not be achieved for at least 20 more years).
No one is really close yet to the development of AHLI (top AI developers/promoters reported to the Congress that AHLI will not be achieved for at least 20 more years).
Hence, for
example, when you listen to someone talking about how to make AI ethical, know
that he or she tells you a lot of "BS" (beyond sense-making), or he/she talks about science fiction.
Today, and for many more years, AI will not be much different from an advanced computer. Human like type of AI will require decades of development, hence decades ahead of us.
What may be worth a discussion is the ethics of developing and exploiting
current AI in a non-harmful way – just like anything else: knives, guns, tanks,
bulldozers, dogs, gorillas, missiles.
This currently is a hot discussion. But this discussion is greatly over-hyped. The ethics of using AI is no different from the ethics of using a hammer, or bulldozer, genetic editing, or an atomic bomb. It is based on two simple rules:
1. When developing ... (fill in the blank) do not mean using it to harm anyone.
2. When developing ... (fill in the blank) also work on preparations to counteract an attempts to harm people by the means of ...
(fill in the blank).
That's it. The ethical part of the discussion is over. The technical part begins, including the discussion of relevant policies.
The proliferation of AI-based technologies in all aspects of business and society is inevitable. But the question "how will AI affect people" does not belong to the field of AI, it belongs to the field of political philosophy, starting from answering question: what does make a human - human?
There is no doubt in my mind that some time in the future the real AI (a.k.a. AGI, AHLI) will be developed. Not in 5 or even 10 years, though, and not even in 20. But sometime in the far future it will. That means only one thing; that means people will cease to be single intelligent species. We can see this situation as if aliens finally introduced themselves, but the kind which also grow up together with humans. And the fact that they will be growing up together is the most important one, because those "artificial humans", when fully developed, will act in accordance with the culture they grew up in, and in accordance with education they received - exactly like humans! There will be, though, one big difference between humans and AI. Every human has to spend years to learn how to live his/her life. AI will be able do it much faster. After one AI will grow up in a specifically constructed environment ("AI schooling facility") and learn how to behave, its memory can be replicated in all other AIs (well, maybe with some unpredictable fluctuations - "AI mental mutations").
This is why the field of AI training will become much more important than it is today. Although, not many AI professionals see it so far - despite the fact that the need for professional AI trainers will grow much faster than advances in the development of human level AI.
Now, let’s circle back to Google Assistant mimicking a person. This demonstration generated a loud buzz in the media. I even read that it has shown how a machine had passed the Turing Test. I do understand the desire to see a miracle, or to live in a fairy tale, that is built-in in our genetic code (hence , the success of the Marvel Universe blockbusters). But we also need to use our ability to do a reality check to balance our fairy tale desire.
This currently is a hot discussion. But this discussion is greatly over-hyped. The ethics of using AI is no different from the ethics of using a hammer, or bulldozer, genetic editing, or an atomic bomb. It is based on two simple rules:
1. When developing ... (fill in the blank) do not mean using it to harm anyone.
2. When developing ... (fill in the blank) also work on preparations to counteract an attempts to harm people by the means of ...
(fill in the blank).
That's it. The ethical part of the discussion is over. The technical part begins, including the discussion of relevant policies.
The proliferation of AI-based technologies in all aspects of business and society is inevitable. But the question "how will AI affect people" does not belong to the field of AI, it belongs to the field of political philosophy, starting from answering question: what does make a human - human?
There is no doubt in my mind that some time in the future the real AI (a.k.a. AGI, AHLI) will be developed. Not in 5 or even 10 years, though, and not even in 20. But sometime in the far future it will. That means only one thing; that means people will cease to be single intelligent species. We can see this situation as if aliens finally introduced themselves, but the kind which also grow up together with humans. And the fact that they will be growing up together is the most important one, because those "artificial humans", when fully developed, will act in accordance with the culture they grew up in, and in accordance with education they received - exactly like humans! There will be, though, one big difference between humans and AI. Every human has to spend years to learn how to live his/her life. AI will be able do it much faster. After one AI will grow up in a specifically constructed environment ("AI schooling facility") and learn how to behave, its memory can be replicated in all other AIs (well, maybe with some unpredictable fluctuations - "AI mental mutations").
This is why the field of AI training will become much more important than it is today. Although, not many AI professionals see it so far - despite the fact that the need for professional AI trainers will grow much faster than advances in the development of human level AI.
Now, let’s circle back to Google Assistant mimicking a person. This demonstration generated a loud buzz in the media. I even read that it has shown how a machine had passed the Turing Test. I do understand the desire to see a miracle, or to live in a fairy tale, that is built-in in our genetic code (hence , the success of the Marvel Universe blockbusters). But we also need to use our ability to do a reality check to balance our fairy tale desire.
Put yourself
in the shoes of a phone operator working 9 to 5, every day, answering numerous
phone calls. You can use ANY voice you like when talking to the guy, he/she
will never even think that it might be a machine. Maybe someone old, or ill, or
wearing braces, or a joker, or with a broken jaw, or else is calling. Because the
guy knows that in 2018 only people can
call on a phone. When a person simply CANNOT EXPECT that a specific event
may even happen, saying that that person did not recognize that event is just –
well - misleading.
A tribe of
Australian aborigines had never known about the existence of airplanes. Every
time when an airplane was flying above them in the sky they thought it was the devil.
Only after the tribe was discovered, eventually the aborigines learned what an airplane
was. Before that, anyone could say “Look, I will show the aborigines an airplane
but they will not recognize it!” And? But we don’t have to travel to Australia
for such a misleading example. Parents do
the same to their little kids all the time! (e.g. telling fairy tales).
The Turing
Test requires that the evaluator would know that the hidden partner may be a
person OR a machine. Without such knowledge
the whole demonstration is meaningless.
Exciting (hence the buzz)! But meaningless (I wonder why not a single professional
in the field would point at that fact).
I am not
sure if AI professionals do not know human psychology or deliberately ignore it,
but it seems that their craving for making a good show overrides the standards
of a scientific conduct.
So, ladies
and gentlemen, let’s see the difference between a show and the reality, let’s cool
down and relax!
The real AI
is not coming any soon!
Appendix I:
The path toward AHLI
First, I would strongly recommend to read "On The Definition of AI". That piece has more insights on how AHLI can be built.
For me, based on all my professional experience in the field, it is absolutely obvious that in order to achieve the abilities of human intelligence, new, future, more advanced neural networks should not just “simply” have more elements, but the whole structure of those networks should be very different from the current ones.
For me, based on all my professional experience in the field, it is absolutely obvious that in order to achieve the abilities of human intelligence, new, future, more advanced neural networks should not just “simply” have more elements, but the whole structure of those networks should be very different from the current ones.
For me, it is also absolutely
obvious that there is the structural difference between a brain of an
intelligent human being and of an animal, difference, which is responsible for the existence
of HLI.
When just born, human
babies behave not much different from the most of the animal cubs. But with
time, humans develop a quality which represents one of the most significant differences
between them and other animals; humans learn to recognize themselves in a mirror (consciousness),
but the most of the animals do
not have that ability. Human intelligence grows from consciousness as "I have to solve this problem and achieve this goal" (human intelligence has a vector: from "I now" to "I tomorrow"). Hence, the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror is
one of the most important steps toward HLI.
(1) When growing up, a human brain learns to differentiate and
analyze signals coming from all the sensors responsible for all the senses. (2) The
signals come from the organs inside the body, as
well as from the organs at the boundary between the body and the world. (3) Those signals lead to various reactions
– some pleasant, some painful, some neutral. (4) And eventually the learning process
leads to the development of highly intelligent actions (in accordance with my definition of intelligence; as an ability to create solutions to problems which have never been solved before).
In the first sentence
in the paragraph above we can replace word “human” with word “animal” and the sentence
still will remain correct. So will the second. And the third. But the last (#4) sentence
will be wrong.
Why? What would be
the natural reason for this difference?
We should conclude,
that having all the signals coming from all the sensors responsible
for all the senses, from the sensors at the boundary between the body and the
world, as well as from the organs inside the body, is not enough for the development
of HLI.
What’s left is a
brain itself.
In a developed human brain, there
has to be a part of a brain which is constantly “feeling” the state of that
brain, and which does not exist in the most of the animals, or exists in a very
underdeveloped state.That part of a brain,
in part, is responsible for knowing the difference between “I” and “that” and “them”. The development and future functioning of this part of a brain is responsible for consciousness (hence - human level intelligence).
When a toddler begins
recognizing himself/herself in a mirror it is a sign that the initial phase of the development of that
part of a brain has reached its end.
It is natural to
assume that a brain has its own “organs” responsible for all activities of a
body, but also an “organ” responsible for the functioning of the brain itself.
Those parts of a brain interact, communicate, and we can even see the existence
of those interactions when observing human interactions. For example, when
asked an unexpected question, a person may have a very brief moment to first let
his/her brain to generate an “idea of the answer”, and then to transfer that
idea into the conscious/cognizant/intelligent construction of words and sentences.
Just look closely at
the face of Jordan Peterson right after he was asked a question and a second
later (pictures are from https://youtu.be/8wLCmDtCDAM;
the video, or course, is much more informative, you can see the moment when the
idea of the answer has been formed, and the rest of the time a brain just spent
on the verbalization of that idea).
Those two different
mental actions: generating an “idea of the answer”, and delivering the verbal
representation of that idea – must happen in different (but, obliviously, connected) parts of a brain.
The structure of a neural network of a highly intelligent host has to have physical/spacial/physiological correspondence to the functions that neural network must enact/fulfill/carry-on.
No current neural network has such a structure.
The structure of a neural network of a highly intelligent host has to have physical/spacial/physiological correspondence to the functions that neural network must enact/fulfill/carry-on.
No current neural network has such a structure.
No current neural
network can mimic this mental behavior.
As I mentioned above,
AI professionals are working hard on the development of an “artificial gorilla”,
and they are very good at doing that. But the development of an “artificial
human” requires first and foremost the fundamental research in the field of
human intelligence and consciousness. The fact that only humans have both, high level of intelligence and consciousness, tells me that
high level of intelligence simply cannot be achieved without achieving consciousness. This, of course, is just my belief, or an axiom, or a postulate, because, technically, this statement is impossible to prove or disprove. But starting from this axiom we must conclude that no matter how advanced pattern recognition methods will become, until the artificial consciousness is achieved, there will be no human level artificial intelligence.
high level of intelligence simply cannot be achieved without achieving consciousness. This, of course, is just my belief, or an axiom, or a postulate, because, technically, this statement is impossible to prove or disprove. But starting from this axiom we must conclude that no matter how advanced pattern recognition methods will become, until the artificial consciousness is achieved, there will be no human level artificial intelligence.
Appendix II: What is common sense?
Every mental ability
has its own physiological basis.
Physiological basis of intelligence is a brain.
Intelligence is the result of the development of the ability to delay a reaction to a stimulus in a brain.
A momentous stimulus-reaction effect is genetically built in (or trained) and does not require intelligent actions.
Intelligence is the result of the development of the ability to delay a reaction to a stimulus in a brain.
A momentous stimulus-reaction effect is genetically built in (or trained) and does not require intelligent actions.
When a stimulus
reaches a brain, but then a brain pauses (for whatever reason), there is a chance that the following
reaction will be one of several possible reactions to the original stimulus (or
to a stimulus similar to the original one).
That pausing may have
developed as the result of reacting to several competing stimuli (and mutations).
That pausing
eventually let a brain to develop an additional “organ” which could oversee the selection between various possible
reactions, which eventually has led to the development of the ability to
reason.
When a source of a stimulus is not a physiological sensor, but a signal generated in a brain, and then a brain selecting a reaction from several possible reactions, and that reaction is not necessary transmitted to a physical motion, but becomes a stimulus for the next selection - that is reasoning. And it can happen only when there is a part of a brain which oversees the process of selecting a reaction of a brain to a stimulus in a brain.
That additional part of a brain was able to develop signals which would model/imitate various external stimuli and possible reactions to them and then would select the optimal behavior for the host of the brain.
That additional part of a brain was able to develop signals which would model/imitate various external stimuli and possible reactions to them and then would select the optimal behavior for the host of the brain.
That mental activity
has eventually become what we now call “human-level intelligence”, or HLI.
Without modeling that additional part of a brain no AI will ever become HLI.
Without modeling that additional part of a brain no AI will ever become HLI.
Without modeling that
additional part of a brain no AI will be even able to conduct a “common sense” behavior (a Paul Allen's dream).
A “common sense”
behavior is more than just a set of our everyday actions.
First, a “common
sense” is relative. What is “common” for some people in one culture or a tradition
may be absolutely “out of the ordinary” for other people in a different culture
or a tradition.
Second, different cultures
even use different linguistic structures to express the meaning of a “common
sense”. In English, “common sense” means “a meaning which is common, the same,
for many”, “communal meaning”, i.e. something naturally accepted by many
people. But in Russian the literal translation of “common sense” would be “healthy meaning”, or “robust meaning”.
And “healthy” or “robust” does not necessarily mean “communal”;
it rather means “natural for that person”, “obvious and does not need an
explanation”, “just because”.
The meaning of a “common
sense as “just because” can be understood from the neurological point of view.
The “logical sense”
represents a decision for which we can provide some kind of a reasoning to support
it, we can say “we do that because …” and list some logical steps which has lead us to the decision.
But “common sense” as
“just because” represents a decision for which we cannot provide any specific
reasoning; it is just obvious (another term that AI does not know) for us. However, the reason it is obvious for us,
lies in the numerous stimulus-reaction interactions which, over a certain period of time, our brain learned as
beneficial for it (or not) without our conscious realization. We “know” (meaning, we feel kike we know) this is the right decision because our brain had built a cause
and effect chain between the initial stimulus and the final reaction. But we
are not aware of the elements of that chain.
"Common sense", or "obvious", is an action which is a reaction of a brain to a certain stimulus, which had been developed without conscious participation of the host of the brain. That is why the host cannot explain why he/she reacts in that certain way.
And that means that our brain has two separate parts: one is responsible for the generation of our intentions, and another is responsible for the verbalization of our intentions, and those parts may “talk” or not “talk” to each other.
And that means that there is another, the third part of a brain which can regulate the communication between the first two.
And that means that our brain has two separate parts: one is responsible for the generation of our intentions, and another is responsible for the verbalization of our intentions, and those parts may “talk” or not “talk” to each other.
And that means that there is another, the third part of a brain which can regulate the communication between the first two.
The situation becomes even more complicated when we begin to analyze such human ability as imagination. What is the mechanism behind it? What additional structures of a brain are responsible for it existence? AI professionals deliverable omit this topic, pretending the imagination has nothing to do with intelligence. Well, there is a very smart person who disagrees.
The road to AHLI requires the development and study of neural nets which model this complicated structure of a brain (including a net which studies patterns happening in another net which makes a decision "is this a banana or not?").
Finally, I want to ask a question to every AI professional who had patience to finish this piece: “Do you want to spend your professional life on the development of an “artificial gorilla”, or your goal is the development of actual AHLI?”
BTW: Everyone who uses a smartphone, or a computer, or a tablet knows what “a bug” is. Bugs are ubiquitous and present themselves everyday in different forms to millions of users.
Thinking that developing AI will be bugged-less is a delusion.
So, it is not just how to make AI which do what is right and don’t do what is wrong. It is also about who will be responsible for the mistakes done by a buggy AI? And those mistakes will never disappear. The second issues is where to find good AI trainers?
If a bad teacher screws a child’s education, a bad trainer will screw AI’s training (and that is on the top of bugs it will have).
They say that AI is only as good as data it used to train it.
But it is not just about data. It is about how good is a trainer at using those data. A bad teacher can have the best Physics textbook and yet don’t so any good to students. Theses are the questions I have not seen discussed anywhere - except here:
https://www.cognisity.how/2018/04/aipuppies.html
Finally, I want to ask a question to every AI professional who had patience to finish this piece: “Do you want to spend your professional life on the development of an “artificial gorilla”, or your goal is the development of actual AHLI?”
BTW: Everyone who uses a smartphone, or a computer, or a tablet knows what “a bug” is. Bugs are ubiquitous and present themselves everyday in different forms to millions of users.
Thinking that developing AI will be bugged-less is a delusion.
So, it is not just how to make AI which do what is right and don’t do what is wrong. It is also about who will be responsible for the mistakes done by a buggy AI? And those mistakes will never disappear. The second issues is where to find good AI trainers?
If a bad teacher screws a child’s education, a bad trainer will screw AI’s training (and that is on the top of bugs it will have).
They say that AI is only as good as data it used to train it.
But it is not just about data. It is about how good is a trainer at using those data. A bad teacher can have the best Physics textbook and yet don’t so any good to students. Theses are the questions I have not seen discussed anywhere - except here:
https://www.cognisity.how/2018/04/aipuppies.html
Thank you for visiting,
To learn more about my professional experience:
No comments:
Post a Comment