undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmonkmartinez9y ago0 comments

> Is an extremely large and well-indexed encyclopaedia smarter than you?

Kind of... I mean, is it useless trivia or is that information that can be used? I can't use information that I don't know exists. The only way I learn what I don't know is by using energy to search, read, do, to hopefully comprehend.

What if "Ok, Google" had some kind of RNN or other ML technique that learned my sons questions and thought process based on how he use the service. Who is to say they are not already doing that? The ads from Google are downright frightening with respect to the accuracy of what I am currently contemplating/researching.

To take this a bit further into "silly, not so silly" land...

With ML techniques; Deepmind, Watson, and others are showing that computers connected to this "encyclopedia" are besting their human counterparts. Is it a giant stretch to say that everything requires some input or energy to learn? Therefore, the only thing we are really missing is the wiring... that is, and I hate to use the "skynet" aphorism, but one day "it" will just turn on and there will be no looking back.

-------------------

>On the other hand, if I tell you enough information, you're likely to connect it together meaningfully, and come to your own conclusions and explanations about it. That seems like a fundamentally different kind of "smart" than what OK, Google can do.

We still have a problem of accuracy. Why should I trust your perception and/or your explanation of the concept? I realize this is a problem with computers as well. However, anything outside of emotional arbitrage should be easy to verify.

My own conclusions are biased as hell. I fully admit that is a problem, but it is a problem shared by humanity. I am not saying Wikipedia isn't biased... but it is 100x better in most cases than one single person's perception simply due to scale.

I am rooting for advanced ML/AI... I also hope that "going analog" is always a viable option.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

khedoros9y ago

In my opinion, information storage and retrieval isn't "intelligence" on its own. A system that implements it can't be said to be "smart". You could argue "knowledgeable", but that's not the same thing.

Imagine that no web page on the internet says what happens when you mix red and blue paint, but there are results for classic color wheels, the results of mixing red+yellow, blue+white, blue+yellow, red+black, etc. Google will see that the page has a bunch of color-related words and words about mixing and paint, so you'll get a page result about that, if you ask it about the red+blue combo. Google's awesome at that kind of thing. But it stinks at the kind of reasoning that humans excel at: Opening that page, seeing "blue+yellow=green", seeing that green is between blue and yellow on a color wheel, and concluding that purple is between red and blue...then maybe continuing on and learning about additive vs subtractive color, and such. The human reader synthesized new information: red+blue=purple. Google organized existing information.

> We still have a problem of accuracy. Why should I trust your perception and/or your explanation of the concept?

That's not the point. The point is that a thinking person can process information in ways that we don't know how to make computers do (yet). We're still distilling the concept of human intelligence down to its core.

I think Google and Watson are still at the level of using and presenting already-generated information effectively, but not generating and organizing their own new information, and not really "understanding" the things that they're retrieving.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

khedoros9y ago

> We still have a problem of accuracy. Why should I trust your perception and/or your explanation of the concept?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse