Thread

1. jimmyjazz14 · 1790632038 · focus · HN ↗

   > We must move past vague discussions of “AI” and instead isolate the specific types of systems that are creating problems.

   This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.

   1. yodsanklai · 1790656534 · focus · HN ↗

      A point that Yann LeCun has been making for a while is that it's meaningless to regulate AI, but we want to regulate applications. For instance, you don't want autonomous vehicles to hit people, whether they use AI or not. In practice, most applications of AI are already regulated.

      1. thaumasiotes · 1790662809 · focus · HN ↗

         > For instance, you don't want autonomous vehicles to hit people, whether they use AI or not.

         What would it mean for a vehicle to be "autonomous", but to "not use AI"?

         1. ehe78qhe · 1790662903 · focus · HN ↗

            Trains are often highly automated without AI, for example. Aircraft are often automated for most of their flight without AI.

            1. throwawayffffas · 1790673326 · focus · HN ↗

               Autopilots perceive the environment, reason, plan and execute actions. Autopilots are AI.

               1. wongarsu · 1790679793 · focus · HN ↗

                  In the academic definition of AI (which includes things like pathfinding with A* or Djikstra's algorithm) autopilots are definitely AI.

                  The popular definition of AI seems to shift every couple of years to follow hype cycles. Chess computers used to be AI (and fit your definition), now they are not. Not sure if Resnet is still AI today, or if autopilots still qualify

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.