Agree w/ some of @GaryMarcus and Davis's points here but don't find the "current AI != 'genuine AI'" framing helpful. Generality/genuineness is a spectrum; today's ML, while outputting narrow systems, is >general than previous ones. Progress is happening. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/artificial-intelligence-challenges.html …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Miles_Brundage @GaryMarcus
The
#AGI fixation is weird. Narrow AI already promises to be "as profound as fire or electricity", not contingent on what@GaryMarcus "genuine" AI at all. Even if there was no progress towards general systems, "today's dominant approach to AI has not worked out" is wrong.3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @DrLukeOR @Miles_Brundage
hasn’t worked out towards oveall promise of building general intelligence. I would yet trust it on many tasks; eg AI for driving just isn’t safe yet to be used unattended, nor to capture the subtlety in an EHR, or the parts of radiology that lie in a patent history.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GaryMarcus @Miles_Brundage
I agree with not being at AGI, but not with the implication that AGI is a prerequisite for profound disruption (a la
@sundarpichai). I'm just saying you don't need it to massively change the world. Solving narrow tasks is plenty disruptive. PS you don't think@Waymo is ready?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
in principle i agree, but lack of reliable NLU and scene comprehension is fairly limiting. and see next tweet. (& no way are driverless cars ready for NYC)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.