On Monday, November 24, 2014 6:45:22 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. >> > > Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent > than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to > name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day > than we were 20 years ago. > > > But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve >> theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired >> data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how >> translation services work. >> > > Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires > intelligence, so why in the world isn't that AI. > > > Big Data does not involve theories of A.I >> > > I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand > equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and > kludges that all add up to something big. > > > It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence >> components, simply rehashed for best fit >> > > Simply? Is convoluted better than simple? Are you saying that if we can > explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? > > > It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which >> would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any >> point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations >> performed by human translators. >> > > And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good > translators by observing how great translators do it. > > > Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to >> be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there >> isn't. >> > > Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become > better at there job than any human; and I predict that the next time it > happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say > "Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists > than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here)". > > John K Clark >
Please address the strong points in the argument and deal with it there. It isn't interesting to me or you, if this is simply about holding your previous position invariant and shifting everything else accordingly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
