This is an article for people who don't know anything about AI (or, for that matter, CS in general). I was skeptical when it opened with the perfunctory Terminator reference, and it didn't fail to disappoint.
The MSM's conflation of actually existent AI (search, learning, etc.) with AGI is becoming a real pet peeve of mine.
I read technical/science articles in the NYTimes mostly out of curiosity about what the larger public thinks about these things and how all the complex research and work in technical and scientific fields gets distilled down and summarized for the mass public. I find it interesting to know what people outside of our bubble think. But, yeah, if you are reading this article seeking new information about AI, then this is a waste of time.
This article gives me the same feeling of when I watch movies with a horrible scientific plot (eg The Transformers). It's entertaining, but so off the mark.
I guess writing about the Multilayer Perceptron, Support/Relevance Vector Machines, and Markov Models isn't as sexy and probably wouldn't sell well...
Then again, I guess what they ARE writing doesn't sell well either...
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 31.3 ms ] threadThe MSM's conflation of actually existent AI (search, learning, etc.) with AGI is becoming a real pet peeve of mine.
But I agree that this article was a waste of time. Especially since CPU's are not getting faster, and have not for several years.
A growing interest in AI is a positive thing.
Kurizwells book on a global brain sounds interesting - the inspiration must of came from the Asimov's "The Last Question".
I guess writing about the Multilayer Perceptron, Support/Relevance Vector Machines, and Markov Models isn't as sexy and probably wouldn't sell well...
Then again, I guess what they ARE writing doesn't sell well either...
I still think it's a very lopsided understanding of the future.