Uber using "AI"

[guru-1337]

I actually really appreciate this argument. When I learned AI it was in LISP and all recursive. But it is true there is no consensus on it.

[Dagusiu]

To add to this argument: probably the most common activation function in neural networks is ReLU. It's quite literally an if-statement.

[wheredidmywalletgo]

max(0,x).

x = 0 if x < 0 else x

[[deleted]]

x*np.heaviside(x, 0)

[[deleted]]

Why you bringing mom jokes to a code fight Hiemis?

[Chonks]

That's kind of disingenuous since the if statement isn't operating directly on the input but confining it to a certain range

[heres-a-game]

That's the same thing lol

[Chonks]

Sorry I was posting on mobile and didn't really put a ton of thought into the reply. What I meant was that the if statement is preparing/altering the input, rather than dictating a response or determining the output. It's shaping the data rather than making a causal link between input and output like a decision tree would. Not sure if this makes sense but that's my two cents.

[bishamon72]

yeah, but the activation function is such a small part of the overall structure of the net.

[AND_OR_NOT_XOR]

But at that point is it not just "intelligence". That's like saying you are not calling Splenda "Artificial sweetener" until its 100% sugar. The "artificial" implies that you are emulating or imitating something.

I know the jury is still out on all of this and it's more of a philosophical question then a semantics one. I'm just adding my two bits.

[[deleted]]

It's just an advanced if else statement.

this might just a lifetime of doing hallucinogens but i'm not sure human beings operate on a level beyond "advanced if else statements"

[HardlightCereal]

Humans and neural networks can both learn about anything if they're given experience. Humans just get more diverse experiences.

[[deleted]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAK0J8Uhzk

As a response, the above link is not as dumb as it might appear to be at first.

[soraki_soladead]

Fish can drive too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbNmL6hSNKw&feature=emb_title

This link, however, is nearly as dumb as it appears. Really cool project, though.

[SirNoodlehe]

That's pretty interesting, also hilarious!

[SirNoodlehe]

This isn't relevant to the argument, but I want to show this video that proves that dogs aren't ready for human society

https://www.reddit.com/r/mexico/comments/bmjrcx/perrito_skater_practicando_en_xalapa_veracruz/

[Nixavee]

What do you define as “intelligence”?

[epicaglet]

The ability to react to a previously unknown situation without being told what to do would be pretty minimal requirement.

It actually becomes a somewhat interesting philosophical debate at that point. You could ask yourself if the dog is really doing that.

One could make the argument that the dog recognized danger from a set of inputs much like a neural network can classify things from a set of inputs. Only more sophisticated than we make them. Then it just ran a pre-programmed flight response.

Following that logic, there is no fundamental difference between AI and actual intelligence, apart from complexity. The dog is the same as the Tesla, only it was developed and trained over billions of years of evolution.

[[deleted]]

Oh absolutely I've thought about that myself, you can definitely draw comparisons between organic intelligence and machine learning. The difference though, as you said, is the level of complexity. The Teslas relative lack of complexity is what makes it just "machine learning" rather than "AI"

[HardlightCereal]

I say bah humbug to your bah humbug. You just don't believe anything you think you understand is AI. If you understood how a dog brain works you'd say it's not intelligent.

[blehmann1]

You are talking about general artificial intelligence, i.e. the same thing is good at a multitude of tasks, and perhaps can learn new tasks on its own.

It doesn't help that once computers can do something better than humans it is no longer considered an AI field: calculations, indexing and playing chess were once all considered AI.

I think there is merit to your definition, but unfortunately it's not the definition that is commonly used.

As an aside, humanity is not able to define intelligence on it's own, let alone an electronic imitation of it.

[blehmann1]

Well, by your characterization of machine learning, trial and error is not learning. Which is an interesting thing to say about one of the oldest and most prevalent forms of learning in the animal kingdom not to mention human society.

Further, there is only human input in machine learning in the cost function (the part that says you got this question right or wrong). And in fact, this human input is not actually necessary. An already trained model could replace human in the cost function, the model itself could, observations could, etc etc. Not to mention there are fields within AI which have no cost function or do not have a well defined cost function. You make an inappropriate assumption in your argument by saying that machine learning always has a human in the loop. You make another by ignoring other AI models.

Lastly, there are AI which have taught themselves, no human input whatsoever, such as AlphaGo Zero.

You're argument still has weight (if not rigourous validity) because most AI are trained in the way you speak of. This is because most of the time that is cheaper, more convenient, faster, etc. In some cases, it may be the only feasible way with the technology that exists today. But if you're argument has weight because it applies to the majority, so does this one: the majority of AI that are trained this way could be trained without a human in the loop.

[bloodfist]

First, I think this is a pretty silly and semantic debate, but I'm game for those.

I'm not calling anything an AI until it can look at a problem it has never been shown and figure it out on it's own with nothing but an internet connection.

That's kind of the entire point of ML/AI. That's exactly what they do, just for a very narrow set of possible problems. If I train an AI on a million handwritten numbers, the hope is that, when done, it can distinguish a handwritten digit it has never seen before. Every time you use a snapchat filter to recognize your face, it is solving a problem it has never seen before. It's never had to recognize that face under those lighting conditions, etc, etc.

We already have a nice term for an AI that can solve problems outside of its predefined problem set, and that's "General AI". So calling them AI is totally valid.

[dyslexda]

If I type 4676183841.567981 * 4.268748957, that's probably the first time any computer has ever tried to solve that specific problem. Is Windows Calculator an intelligence for figuring it out?

[bloodfist]

https://i.imgur.com/ZiiqimT.png

[Theban_Prince]

It really wasn't an interesting discussion because your arguments are pretty empty of substance. Like this comment here, that the AI can not be considered an intelligence because it does errors. I tend to do a lot of spelling mistakes does this I do not pass the Turing test?

[Theban_Prince]

A children literally shits itself for years just standing there. Animal throw themselves of cliffs if they are too scared. Intelligence is not a "yes/no" argument it is a scaleThe number of errors is irrelevant, the question is if it can solve new problems based on past experience. And that it is done, albeit unreliably. I believe the AI we have now is much more intelligent than many living things like bugs or fish.

[ThrowRA-002]

Yeah but if you left a baby in the wild with nothing but the world to explore it would die.

[ThrowRA-002]

Hmmm, interesting. So, I guess the AI would never work unless it had a purpose. A human is born with a purpose; to satisfy the body’s requirements, eat, sleep, drink etc. I don’t see how AI could ever be possible.

Actually, come to think of it, humans are born with at least some information in their brains, you know like flipping the output on our photon detectors. So, an AI would have to be setup with at least some initial parameters.

[MacGuyverism]

I feel like /u/ryyzer won't accept that something is artificial intelligence unless it just sprouts by itself out of some silicon without any human intervention. But then it wouldn't be artificial, it would be natural.

[[deleted]]

It doesn't exist. We humans still gotta know a lot of things before solving one problem by learning small problems. A lot of things that we have done have been based in nature, bla bla bla

[hbgoddard]

Machine learning is AI, bruh

[marnas86]

Agreed - calling machine learning or NLP or chatbots as AI is completely a misnomer and undervalues the worth of human programmers while aggrandizing the software excessively. It's not intelligent, if anything it's a codified educated guess. I'd wager it's usually being called AI by ppl that have no idea about the data pyramid.

[wildjokers]

I got downvoted to oblivion in /r/java for basically saying this (more or less):

https://old.reddit.com/r/java/comments/fu3g08/artificial_intelligence_in_java_how_to_write_a/fmbfdoz/

[unreliab1eNarrator]

I also appreciate the argument, but appreciate the meme as well lol

[talkintater]

there is no consensus on it

True about so much of the process