[HN Gopher] Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happ...
___________________________________________________________________
Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet
Author : seagullz
Score : 102 points
Date : 2020-12-24 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| klenwell wrote:
| _The problem had to do not just with data analysis per se, but
| with what database researchers call "provenance" -- broadly,
| where did data arise, what inferences were drawn from the data,
| and how relevant are those inferences to the present situation?
| While a trained human might be able to work all of this out on a
| case-by-case basis, the issue was that of designing a planetary-
| scale medical system that could do this without the need for such
| detailed human oversight._
|
| I'm not a data scientist and I've never encountered that term
| "provenance" before but I've encountered the problem he talks
| about in the wild here and there and have searched for a good way
| to describe it. His ultrasound example is a great, chilling,
| example of it.
|
| I also like the term "Intelligence Augmentation" (IA). I've
| worked for a couple companies who liberally sprinkled the term AI
| in their marketing content. I always rolled my eyes when I came
| across it or it came up in say a job interview. What we were
| really doing, more practically and valuably, was this: IA through
| II (Intelligent Infrastructure), where the Intelligent
| Infrastructure was little more than a web view on a database that
| was previously obscured or somewhat arbitrarily constrained to
| one or two users.
| jamesblonde wrote:
| We address the problem of adding provenance without rewriting
| your tensorflow/scikit-learn/pytorch/pyspark application by
| adding CDC support in the ML stack and collecting all events in
| a metadata layer, building an implicit provenance graph. It's
| now part of the open-source Hopsworks platform. See this USENIX
| OpML'20 talk on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAzEyeWItH4
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| Data provenance is a standard term of art in machine learning
| and data science, a "data 101" kind of thing, with many OSS and
| vendor tools built up to solve provenance problems, like DVC,
| Pachyderm, kubeflow, mlflow, neptune, etc.
| ACow_Adonis wrote:
| worked with stats, machine learning and data science for 10+
| years now. never heard the term used until now. (that's not
| to say I'm not familiar with the things the term refers to,
| indeed, most of the intellectual frameworks I've worked with
| break each of the things that make up provenance into far
| more fine grained concepts).
|
| course, I've also never heard of or touched the software you
| listed there either, but that may be because I don't view the
| data science and machine learning I'm interested in as being
| about specific software or vendor software...
|
| sounds more database- lingo to me...
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| It's shocking if you've worked professionally in statistics
| and not heard about data provenance.
|
| A few publications from ~2011-2015 period:
|
| http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1558/paper37.pdf
|
| https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5739644
|
| https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-53974-9
| _...
|
| Add a variety of additional links dating back a bit further
| (note the emphasis in this case on _research_ data and
| tracking state of an experiment).
|
| https://nnlm.gov/data/thesaurus/data-provenance
|
| Data provenance is not a database / data warehouse term. It
| is uniquely and specifically a basic "101" concept of
| statistical science and ML / data science, where the
| custody and tracking of data are specifically tied to
| iterations of experiments, prototypes and research, for the
| sake of reproducibility.
|
| If I was interviewing an experienced statistical researcher
| and they didn't at least have a working knowledge of the
| core concepts, that would be a huge red flag.
| renjimen wrote:
| I've also worked as a data scientist for a few years and
| have never heard or used the word "provenance" in a DS
| context. Some people used it in the oil & gas industry when
| talking about where reservoir sands came from, but that
| usually garnered a eye-roll and mental translation to more
| everyday language.
| btilly wrote:
| Provenance is an idea that shows up in multiple fields. I first
| encountered it in discussions of archeology. But then it showed
| up in, for example,
| https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2020/12/14/provenance.html discussing
| how improper handling of pointer provenance can cause code to
| get miscompiled.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance gives more on the term
| and the way it shows up.
| jjeaff wrote:
| You'll hear the term provenance used quite a bit on PBS's
| long running Antiques Roadshow.
| kodah wrote:
| Provenance is also used in wine and art where a chain of
| custody, which the value largely hinges on, must be through
| trustworthy people or institutions.
|
| More interestingly, both wine and art have had their
| provenance hinges widely exploited for massive profit while
| posh people think they're enjoying something exclusive.
| ape4 wrote:
| Wikipedia says "Provenance is conceptually comparable to the
| legal term chain of custody."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| If you (ever) need to update your data, you need to know
| where you got it from, what was wrong with it originally, and
| how to pull it again.
| agency wrote:
| The IA terminology brings to mind the classic "Augmenting Human
| Intellect"[1] essay by Doug Engelbart (famous for giving "The
| Mother of all Demos"[2])
|
| [1] https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
| bigbubba wrote:
| It reminds me of the memex essay:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-
| we-m...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex
| ksec wrote:
| While real AI hasn't really happened yet, Machine Learning has
| definitely made a big impact with lots of potentials. I think we
| are still in the middle of the S Surve in ML.
|
| And AI is like.... Fusion? We are always another 50 years away.
| xmo wrote:
| Cross posted medium link:
| https://medium.com/@mijordan3/artificial-intelligence-the-re...
| dang wrote:
| Since the original URL
| (https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu/blog/michael-i-jordan-
| artificia...) is responding slowly and points to the medium.com
| URL as the original source anyhow, we've changed to the latter.
| Thanks!
| ipnon wrote:
| So what do we name this new emerging engineering discipline?
|
| AI engineering?
|
| Cybernetic engineering?
|
| Data engineering?
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Cybernetics and systems engineering certainly has to make a
| comeback if we are to solve coordination problems like this at
| planetary scale. It deeply saddens me that we almost reached a
| popular acceptance of cybernetics in the 60s, but it passed us
| by - we'd be in a much better position now if it had become a
| mainstream science in the way that other, much less useful
| sciences have.
| thx2099100 wrote:
| I agree.
|
| As I see from reading a little about the field's history and
| the literature, it suffered the same fate of other endeavors
| that are complex and still have a lot to be solved.
|
| people become interested in it, try to find simpler 'popular'
| formulation and then the watered down versions become more
| popular than the original more complex version that need more
| rigor and discipline.
|
| the watered down versions become more popular but without the
| rigor and discipline, you can argue and conclude everything
| and they opposite with these tools.
|
| so people on the outside see the field as yet another fad and
| the whole field die down taking down with it the original
| version.
|
| much like in AI with everyone labeling their stuff as AI
| which dilute the term and more and more as time passes.
|
| what Cybernetics and systems engineering needs is a
| rebranding and separation from the more 'soft' side that
| developed latter.
|
| this is where I think some researchers on category theory
| like Jules Hedges might help. it would help defining
| dynamical and more general system in a vague but still formal
| way, say with a computer proof assistant sort of tool.
| dhairya wrote:
| Part of the challenge of pursuing this comprehensive type of AI
| infrastructure is that it requires massive coordination and
| collaboration. Unfortunately the incentives in both industry and
| academia make it difficult to even start such a project. As a
| result we're stuck with incremental work on narrow problems.
|
| I've been on both sides of table (started in industry developing
| AI solutions and now in academia pursuing phd in AI). When I was
| on the industry side, where the information and infrastructure
| was there to build such a system, you had to deal with the
| bureaucracy and institutional politics.
|
| In academia, the incentives are aligned for individual production
| of knowledge (publishing). The academic work focuses on small
| defined end-to-end problems that are amenable to deep learning
| and machine learning. The types of AI models that emerge are
| specific models solving specific problems (NLP, vision, play go,
| etc).
|
| It seems to move towards developing large AI systems we need a
| model of new collaboration. There are existing models in the
| world of astrophysics and medical research that we can look to
| for inspiration. Granted they have they have their own issues of
| politics but it's interesting that similar scope projects haven't
| emerged on the AI side yet.
| boltzmannbrain wrote:
| This post should (1) reflect the 2018 posting date, and (2) the
| main hosting site:
| https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/wot7mkc1/release/9
| nextos wrote:
| Dead link for me, but archive.org has a snapshot:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20201224185231/https://rise.cs.b...
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| The reason we don't just have great expert systems from the last
| 30 years is because Capital is more interested in cutting wages
| than increasing productivity.
| tucnak wrote:
| >Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet
|
| No shit
| yalogin wrote:
| The phrase AI always bothered me. What we have is a generic way
| to do "curve fitting" on a large amount of data. Nothing more.
| The one difference is the "curve" is a black box but it still
| strictly adheres to the input used.
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| Actually I think the first example was a really simple case,
| where statistics would expose the error. So even the doctor said,
| that they experienced an uptick in Down syndrome diagnoses. So
| basically they just didn't investigate it properly. From my
| experience every advanced ML-System have proper monitoring and
| such anomalies would be detected very fast. Especially when you
| change the machines. Actually it is a shame that the doctors
| couldn't figure it out by themselves or at least investigate it
| properly.
| drevil-v2 wrote:
| I wonder what is the end game in the reality where we do achieve
| Artificial General Intelligence? It seems like a ethical
| minefield to me.
|
| You have companies like Uber/Lyft/Tesla (and presumably the rest
| of the gig economy mob) waiting to put the AI into bonded/slave
| labor driving customers around 24/7/365.
|
| If it truly is a Human level intelligence, then it will have
| values and goals and aspirations. It will have exploratory
| impulses. How can we square that with the purely commercial tasks
| and arbitrary goals that _we_ want it to perform?
|
| Either we humans want slaves that will do what we tell them to or
| we treat them like children who may or may not end up as the
| adults that their parents think/hope they will become? I doubt it
| is the later because why else would the billions of dollars
| investment being pumped into AI? They want slaves.
| WitCanStain wrote:
| I don't think the claim that human-level intelligence entails
| human ambitions has been substantiated. Why could you not have
| a system that does things as intelligently as a human but
| without a will of its own? It would only make sense if having
| human values and goals is necessary to having intelligence but
| I don't see how that could be true.
| root_axis wrote:
| There's no reason to believe that future AGIs will necessarily
| have values, goals, and aspirations.
| goatlover wrote:
| To avoid paying employees, creating greater profit margins.
| coddle-hark wrote:
| The robots will gain civil rights the same way humans did,
| either by means of violence or swaying public opinion.
| Hopefully the latter. This isn't a guess as to how future
| robots will work, this is an observation about how humans work.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| >>> in Down syndrome diagnoses a few years ago; it's when the new
| machine arrived
|
| Hang on - uptick in _diagnosis_ (ie post amniocentesis) or uptick
| in _indicators_. One indicates unnecessary procedures, one
| indicates a large population of previously undiagnosed downs ....
|
| One assumes the indicator - and greatly hope there is improved
| detection as I had at least one of these scares with my own kids
| gwern wrote:
| Presumably what he is leaving out is that the increase in
| white-spots led to more amniocentesis, which then confirms the
| Down syndrome. If you did amniocentesis on all babies, it would
| of course increase the diagnosis rate even more.
|
| Whether this is a bad thing, as he claims, depends on whether
| you believe screening was being done optimally before, and that
| will depend quite a bit on things left out like the utility of
| not having a Down baby. (He doesn't present his working out the
| entire scenario, as it's just an aside, but hopefully before
| Jordan went around telling people how to change their prenatal
| screening systems, he did work it out a little bit more than
| back-of-the-envelope.)
| aaron-santos wrote:
| More false positives from ultrasounds could lead to more
| amniocentesis true positives simply by increasing the number of
| amniocentesis performed. Without more information it's not
| possible to tell.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| How would one put it?
|
| "Adaptive Intelligence" might be described as the ability to be
| given a few instructions, gather some information and take
| actions that accomplish the instructions. It's "underlings",
| "minions" do.
|
| But if we look at deep learning, it's almost the opposite of
| this. Deep learning begins with an existing stream of data, a
| huge stream, large enough that the system can just extrapolate
| what's in the data, include data leads to what judgements. And
| that works for categorization and decision making the duplicates
| what decisions humans make or even duplicates what works, what
| wins in a complex interaction process. But all that doesn't
| involve any amount of adaptive intelligence. It "generalizes"
| something but our data scientists have no idea exactly what.
|
| The article proposes an "engineering" paradigm as an alternative
| to the present "intelligence" paradigm. That seems more sensible,
| yes. But I'm doubtful this could accepted. Neural network AI
| seems like a supplement to the ideology of unlimited data
| collection. If you put a limit on what "AI" should do, you'll put
| a limit on the benefits of "big data".
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-24 23:00 UTC)