+100. Last I checked the Dartmouth Conference's premise still hadn't been satisfied, so calling anything ML can do AI is just clickbait froth. But I'm agreed that the non-AI "AI" stuff is both the power and the danger here, and this kind of overselling is...risky.
As an example - this weekend Pro Publica published the results of a study on automated model generation used for determining prisoner reoffence risk. To the surprise of nobody, they found the models trend towards automated racism little better than a coinflip.[0] It's never going to write your code for you, or have a conversation about the weather, or Codsworth it up,[1] but it's here nonetheless lurking in the background, determining the course of human lives, and with more ink spent 'explaining' how Robots Are Going To Eliminate Programming than Robots Are Going To Automate Bigotry. Agreed on "scary" :| [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kacrYB8Li0 On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just a quick thought that I shared in IRC earlier. > >> AI isn't magical. It's pretty cool, but you're not going to have a >> conversation with ORES. > > > It's not false that we are closer to strong "conversational" AI than ever > before. Still, in practical terms, we're pretty far away from not needing > to program anymore. I find that articles like this are more fantastical > than informative. I guess it is interesting to think about where we'll be > when we can have an abstract conversation with a computer system rather than > the rigid specifics of programming, but I'm with Brian -- this seems to be a > cycle. Though, I'd say the media does boom and bust, but the research > carries on relatively consistently since AI researchers are usually less > interested in the hype. > > In the ORES project, we're using the most simplistic "AIs" available -- > classifiers. Still these dumb AIs can still help us to do amazing things > (e.g. review all of RecentChanges in 50x faster or augment article histories > with information about the *type of change* made). IMO, it's these amazing > and powerful things that dumb, non-conversational AIs can do that is very > powerful and a little scary. We're hardly taking advantage of that at all. > I think that's where the next big revolution with AI is taking place right > now. It's going to change a lot of things and infect many aspects of our > life (and in many ways it already has). > > -Aaron > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Purodha Blissenbach > <puro...@blissenbach.org> wrote: >> >> I see only an ad to support Wired. >> Purodha >> >> >> On 20.05.2016 20:11, Pine W wrote: >>> >>> Seems like a good summary: http://www.wired.com/2016/05/the-end-of-code/ >>> >>> Comments welcome, especially from Wikimedia AI experts who are working on >>> ORES. >>> >>> Pine >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
