-
• #102
Well, I think it's primarily a data-gathering exercise, where you have a picture and a human decision/answer (i.e. whether or not the object in question is in the picture). And then that data can be used for supervised learning (to train the forthcoming generation of robot overlords).
-
• #103
This was an interesting read
-
• #105
Dafuq?
To me that article read like a bingo sheet of AI related concepts and anecdotes you already knew of, but wrapped in that fake TED talk coziness where the audience chuckles warmly in all the right places because it makes them feel clever. -
• #106
It's just a bit long, like a transcript of a TED lecture. Tried to wade through it, just about made it.
-
• #107
I did try to preface it with interesting not superb or a must read
It is however, accessible to a wider audience, and being Wired, falls within those parameters; as do the quasi forward thinking TED talk shenanigans.
In the same span of mental capacity whereby people watched Ex-Machina and came to the instant conclusion that AI that suddenly does Philosophy of self has binary results. Us or them without expanding on enough to consider moral/practical co-existence.Anyway I'm going off on tangent. What people keep labeling as AI seems to be in every form media these days and it's interesting seeing the direction it's taking in terms of they're imprinting readership with
-
• #108
Out of interest people, as a person who gets how computers work but has kinda been ignoring IA and whatnot because too nerdy, how to I educate myself in how we have come from
a machine that can do lots of math, fast
...
...
...
OMG THINKING MACHINESWhat is the must-read stuff that describes the full stack and how the components of it work together?
-
• #109
This did it for me
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach -
• #110
What is the must-read stuff that describes the full stack and how the components of it work together?
+1
-
• #111
a lot of it is quite simple, but done at extreme speed and in large volumes
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/machine-learning-ai-explained
https://medium.com/machine-learning-for-humans/why-machine-learning-matters-6164faf1df12
-
• #112
Wait But Why covers AI.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
-
• #113
I visit the Two Minute Papers from time to time. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the content, but at least you get something fresh with each update.
-
• #114
Looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks all.
-
• #115
I bumbled through a degree in AI in 1997, really wish I had the intelligence to see its potential role in our future and stuck with it. Unfortunately it was a lot of Java and C programming, NLP and such like... I’d only just got my first email account. #nottechie
-
• #116
No Lisp or Prolog?
-
• #117
There was some Prolog, I’d buried that memory deep. No one really had a PC back then so many late nights in computer rooms with other people who all needed a shower.
Java was really being touted as the future so a major part of the course was getting people up to speed. -
• #118
I think most people who’ve been exposed to Prolog have suppressed the memory. I even dabbled with Parlog for a bit, parallel processing Prolog. Shame I’ve forgotten it all.
-
• #119
I'm a bit skeptical of Artificial Super Intelligence and the steep trajectory it tends to be put on. It's more a philosophical issue with the whole concept of AI proper, in that we don't even really know what consciousness is and yet we're apparently on our merry way at making it.
It's similar to the Fermi Paradox, we don't know if there's intelligent life in the universe and how we'd compare to it because we're the only known example.
Given that, isn't the idea of AI exponentially expanding into some super intelligence rather redundant, because we could be as good as it gets. I know that sounds a bit like the old astronomers who thought the universe revolved around us but we just don't have the data.What we do know, is that we are what we define as conscious and that we understand our past to some degree and that we exist in space. Sagan said much more elegantly: “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
That alone could be some natural hard-limit and is already a borderline paradox for my little brain.
-
• #120
Shit, Lisp rings a bell. Did I do an AI subject in uni? If I did I have almost zero recollection of it. Guess it was worth it...
-
• #121
Read this. Edit: everyone.
-
• #122
This is interesting and worth a read
-
• #123
A nice clip - with a happy backing track - about killer robots
-
• #124
We're all fucked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I
-
• #125
^ Expecting a follow up to this ad soon...
Kind of replacing the Turing Test?