On a somewhat higher level, smart intersections look uncomfortably smooth, but can handle twice as many cars per unit of time, without traffic lights.https://www.dezeen.com/2016/03/21/light-traffic-junctions-mit-research-smart-intersections-design-driverless-vehicles/ …
-
Show this thread
-
When AlphaGo beat the human champion, it made a move that was completely unexpected, one that human teachers would have trained out of their students: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11185030/google-deepmind-alphago-go-artificial-intelligence-impact …pic.twitter.com/zhw8OrLubq
3 replies 13 retweets 206 likesShow this thread -
What's the common thread? Machines tend to depend on us to define the high-level objectives, but they can explore infinitely more of the solution space than we could hope to. Their results are often much much better than we could ever hope to produce.
6 replies 22 retweets 401 likesShow this thread -
At the same time, they come with an aesthetic strongly pointing to natural patterns. Their form and function merge in a way that feels unattainable, but strangely perfect. And yet, the designs are ephemeral. A single change in requirements produces a completely different result.
4 replies 19 retweets 320 likesShow this thread -
Algorithmic design automates first principles thinking. By being incredibly fast, they can start over every time, and starting from scratch every time, they can afford to search for global optima, away from legacy, tradition, path dependency.
2 replies 13 retweets 286 likesShow this thread -
I'm getting increasingly convinced that we should be creating algorithms instead of directly designing things as much as possible. If we're not able to design a chair, what tells us that we can design organizations, laws, educational curricula, health systems?
13 replies 41 retweets 412 likesShow this thread -
Humans are good at spotting errors but not great at being reliably great all the time. As the stakes rise, we can't afford to be carrying forward old designs just because we don't have time to redesign things. Codebases that are decades old are mostly waste and deadlock.
2 replies 7 retweets 182 likesShow this thread -
Our egos are telling us that we can do it better, but the reality is that we would be much better served focusing on simplifying our world before the complexity builds up to the point of collapse.
2 replies 20 retweets 186 likesShow this thread -
Here's the good news: There's a future where humans and machines can cooperate to be better than either on their own. Centaur chess (human+machine teams) produces beter games than the best chess engines alone.https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html …
4 replies 11 retweets 190 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @alexandrosM @0K_ultra
per
@gwern this is no longer true and machines school humans at chess5 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
> feel

-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @sonyasupposedly and
Yeah, it does, to me, intuitively. I could do the work to bolster the case, but you know, Twitter.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.