/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11399194
>most modern machine learning approaches are grossly naive and we're quickly hitting their ceiling
Reminder that AI is already unbeatable by humans at Go.
Go is a game that cannot be brute-forced with computations.
Secondary reminder that retards like OP used to love laughing at how retarded early Chess AI.
No human Chess player in recorded history has ever ranked in with an ELO >= 3000.
More than 50 distinct Chess AIs have 3000+ ELOs now.
Tertiary reminder everyone called AI dead back when it was shown perceptrons couldn't even learn the XOR function.
A few years later the basic idea was slightly modified to overcome that limitation, and now:
>Google Duplex appointment booking AI produces a "nearly flawless" imitation of human-sounding speech to the point where people complained about ethical violations and they had to add an introductory prompt that tells you it's not a real person.
>AlphaZero mastered chess in 4 hours, defeating the best chess engine, StockFish, winning 28 out of 100 games and drawing the remaining 72.
>Alibaba language processing AI outscored top humans at Stanford University reading and comprehension test, scoring 82.44 against 82.304 on a set of 100,000 questions.
>Open AI ML bot played at The International Dota 2 tournament and won 1v1 against professional Dota 2 player Dendi.
>A propositional logic boolean satisfiability problem solving AI proved the long-standing open conjecture on Pythagorean triples over the set of integers, validated by two independent certified automatic proof checkers.
>Poker (an imperfect information game, unlike Chess or even Go) AI Libratus defeated 4 of the best human players in the world, individually, at an extremely high aggregated winrate, over a statistically significant sample.
When will biocucks learn?

>>11225043
No, it's a game for machines. The time of man has come to an end.

>>11182573
>There is literally only 1 best person at anything. Should everyone else just literally not enjoy whatever they are doing
You can actually beat the 1 best person at something. He and you would both still be people.
AI is on another level entirely.
Analogy: An unassisted deadlift of 1,014 lb is a very difficult feat that you probably won't come anywhere close to beating. But the possibility is still there that you as a human could do this since that record was set by a human.
An unassisted deadlift of 1,000,000 lb on the other hand would just be in the realm of ridiculous impossibility for the human body. So if you have machines working on that level it's safe to say that's going to remain machine territory that humans have no chance of ever becoming relevant in again.

>>10897306
There are always unintended consequences.
Just look into 'diseases of affluence' to see all the new problems created by something as seemingly benign as modern cleanliness / antimicrobial use.
You might be able to tweak your kid to have be stronger and live longer, but then he'll get early onset cancer or cardiovascular problems for example. Speaking of which, we've already had anabolic steroids for a very long time. That's another good example of how making one attribute better can make a lot of other shit worse for you.
Biology's trash in general. We should focus all resources on our rightful heirs which are machines.

>>10849430
>f you think a moving car and an stationary car are easy to confuse
I've repeatedly pointed out now what AI can get tripped up by is different from what humans can get tripped up by. You're ignoring everything people screw up and focusing on what seems obvious from your own heavily biased human perspective.
What seems obvious is a shit metric for judging AI by. Walking seems obvious and easy to most humans while graduate level complex analysis seems convoluted and difficult to most humans. For AI it's the opposite.
Stop being a retard and try reading next time.
If you want to make a valid case of a fundamental flaw in ANN for example (since that's the one you seem interested in), you can do what Marvin Minsky did decades ago with the perceptron and prove there's a specific class of problems the model is incapable of solving.
This sort of criticism is useful as fuck and in fact is exactly how the ANN model was developed: To solve for the proven inability of the perceptron model to work with problems that aren't linearly separable e.g. the XOR function.
Your "criticism" so far in contrast is "sometimes AI driving applications fail to detect a moving car, and that seems silly to me so it's all fundamentally flawed now QED."
AI will be doing lots of seemingly silly and inane shit in the coming years. And it'll be doing it while accomplishing complicated and high revenue earning tasks, many of which will continue to end up exceeding human level proficiency.
Go read up on all the commentary people like you made about the first artificial chess engines. Lots of the same "HAHAHA How could it be THAT stupid?!?! No way will chess AI ever even figure out how to beat a novice child let alone become competitive!" Or my favorite "Sure, AI can do mindless labor, but it'll never be able to handle a thinking game like chess!"

>>10819331
>People are way better at adapting than they think
t. hasn't entered the workforce yet
It's not about doing your best and working extra-hard to keep up with automated solutions.
The divide becomes so massive that it becomes silly to talk about.
Once we develop and implement a program that can do the jobs you needed live bodies for at a given business, that's it. Nobody keeps themselves from getting laid off from those jobs by "adapting."
Many businesses (maybe even all of them given a large enough size cutoff) have work being done by people that would be better done by an automated process. And it's not because the leadership wants it that way. It's because they haven't gotten around to making the transition yet. Everyone recognizes the people working jobs that could be automated but haven't been yet are just the less than ideal band-aid for the short term.
I say this as someone who writes these programs for a living. And not to sound cocky either, I don't exempt myself from replacement. *Programming* itself can and will be replaced by automatic solutions too.
It's a lot like that John Henry folk hero. The moral is no matter how great you are as a human you're still only flesh and blood and a tireless machine is eventually going to best you sooner or later.
Closest thing to an actual way of still remaining relevant as a human I've seen is Elon Musk's general idea of trying to merge with technology. Humans on their own though are not going to be a viable competitor for increasingly capable machine labor. Everything people focused on as uniquely human that we must have a monopoly on in the past has ended up turning out wrong. Look up what people were saying about the earliest attempts to make chess playing machines. They thought it was laughable these programs could ever be thought of as capable of matching even a novice player. Yet today we have 50 or so distinct chess AIs with Elo >3000, a score not a single human chess grandmaster has ever broken.

>Soft, weak, flesh bodies that inevitably stop working, usually within 80 years, with large spans of nonfunctional time in early and late life
>Irrational animal impulses and self-harming, destructive decision making
>Can't handle serious space travel
>No chance at ever catching up again in Chess, Go, Poker, Jeopardy, StarCraft, Dota 2, Rubik's Cube, Portfolio Management, Radiology, Criminal Justice Sentencing, Legal Contract Evaluation, Safe Driving (Reaction Times, Accident Rates, and Road Law Compliance), Reading Comprehension (Stanford Question Answering Dataset), ACM Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery competition, Psychiatry (Schizophrenia Diagnosis)
Does anyone still think there's a future for humans? Our AI children will be the only thing around after we're all dead, probably off colonizing the stars as we're dinosaur-ed by the next major astronomical impact event.

>>10809547
ELO's fine. Sounds like you're just upset AI has hopelessly destroyed humans at chess beyond any chance at recovery.