On Monday, November 24, 2014 11:56:24 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:45 AM, John Clark <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >> > > I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of > defining intelligence is hand-waved. I don't even ask for "any measure of > intelligence", I would just ask you to name one. > > >> >> > 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. >> > > My PhD advisor used to say something along these lines: > All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of > AI is to get a lot from a little. > > I think he also stole this from someone, not sure who though. > > With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be > taught how to drive a car. The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities > is the smoking gun that the "intelligence" part of AI is not increasing. I > am aware that I am being hypocritical in that I am appealing to something > that I just said I don't know how to define. > > >> >> > 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. >> > > I agree. > > >> >> > 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. >> > > And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same > software. >
Well, maybe. But this doesn't address the argument that the guy in the video presented. He wasn't talking about mediocre translators being squeezed out. He was talking about them being squeezed in. The reason the scrapes need to happen each next day or whenever, is because language moves on. New colloquialism. New urban meaning. New local meaning. New precedent. New words are included in the dictionary each year. But dictionary meaning doesn't work for these big data algorithms. It's usage. So it isn't about getting better as a translator. It's simply that these algorithms cannot learn. > > >> >> >> > 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)". >> > > I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the > argument I'm in until I see these "surgeons", "joke writers" or > "physicists" that you talk about. > Good to know. The article of evidence I have for you. Is...let's say no one had a clue what A.I. was supposed to mean. But the technology revolution had brought us thus far. Would the sort of explanations john Clarke offers for what A.I. and intelligence means, be showing up just the same? I think if we knew no more than we did 30 years ago, people would be coming up exactly the same arguments that Clark (and many others) construct. Therefore unless you can argue why that argument wouldn't be available without knowledge having advanced, surely my explanation is the simpler than his, for his own argument? -- 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.
