This video seems to disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTbptEdKhY
(youtube is not ONLY using video content, not even mostly, but it is using it)
> Talking machines: HMM existed in useful form in the 80s
HMMs are machine learning. Sure it's statistical learning, but come on. And I would further argue that wavenet is a hell of a lot better.
> Programming robots with 'AI' -no you absolutely cannot do this; anyone who tries to sell you this is a charlatan
Meaning it hasn't been productionized yet (and therefore it's very hard to do atm) yes. True. But it's also been shown to be possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZUr7jxoqM
etc ...
> You have a big fat nothing burger above. 'AI' hasn't changed anyone's life in an appreciable way.
I don't agree, obviously.
> The things you list above are ... very far from the singularity of mass unemployment that people seem to envision. Most of them actually seem to create more jobs.
I said exactly that didn't I ?
Your argument seems to be "we have gradient boosting and HMM and they are useful for things" which I certainly don't disagree with; I mostly make my living using such tools.
What I do disagree with is the idea that it meaningfully increases human power over nature, or changes people's day to day lives. A list of things which meaningfully increased human power over nature: flight, radio, computers, networked computers, electrification, antibiotics, the microchip, nuclear power, the green revolution, steam engines; maybe even stuff like Pagerank/sparse SVD.
The subject known as 'AI' seems to be down around ... I dunno, electric lawn mowers in its impact on human life. You can assert that the difference is gonna be real big one of these days; people made such assertions as far back as the 1960s, but so far, it totally hasn't made much of a difference. Yet your prediction, completely without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this?
It's probably only fair to warn you that it'll be quite hard to convince me they don't really drive autonomously.
> without any basis in the corporeal world, is that AI will eventually eliminate most jobs. Why do you think this?
Waymo + Tesla + ... + http://mentalfloss.com/article/61541/most-common-job-each-st... seems to me like asking for trouble.
(Europe's map looks similar btw)
https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/
Disclosure; I attempted to patent this idea before they were public with it, because I know the autonomous claims are baloney, and there was an obvious way to look like it wasnt baloney.
I also just spent two weeks driving an Audi A-8 around Germany; most advanced 'autonomous' technology there is in a production car supposedly.
Are you really going to assert that autonomous control doesn't exist unless there is no option at all for it to call for help ?
Your link says it itself:
"This is a backup system for moments when the car isn’t sure what to do, so it comes to a safe stop on its own and calls for help."
The article likens it to elevators. Because elevators all of them "have operators". Really. Behind a phone line. Would you really argue elevators don't move by themselves at the direction of a customer, but only move at the oversight of a remote operator ? Because that's one of those things that's technically true ... and yet so wrong it's almost ridiculous.
Now of course self-driving tech isn't quite up to elevator level of reliability yet.
Also I'd like to point out that even under those circumstances, people would still lose their jobs. Because it'll allow 1000 trucks to be controlled by, first 200, then 100, then 10, then 1 drivers. Even if 80% lose their jobs, truck driver will stop being a significant percentage of employment, and if it was one company it is now the biggest employer in more than 70% of all US states.
As in, I hear you, and very interesting article, but it doesn't seem to change anything in the discussion.
I suppose I am too; filling out those patent forms was a lot of work.
Query: why do you think the military doesn't have any autonomous ground (or air) vehicles? Military virtually always has the most advanced tech; unlimited budget -lots of motivation for supply lines which run themselves and can't be shot at, lots of reasons not to expose expensive soldiers to fire, and very little care for stuff like safety. Yet, somehow they have no such things. I wonder why that is?
I have consulted for the military, and frankly I was amazed that there seems to be no correlation between intelligence and rank. Especially some lieutenants were incredibly smart but several colonels ... I wouldn't trust them with tying their own shoelaces. This resulted in extremely smart and well organized groups trying to work with complete morons.
And I must say, that results in a pretty stupid whole. The damage the idiot groups inflict is not compensated by the better parts of the organization. Not in logistics. Not in radar operation (where I consulted). Not in organizing the cafeteria. It seems to me that it is utterly impossible to get fired for incompetence in the military. So they keep working with total idiots, even promote them.
What I'm saying is that it's the military. They have awe-inspiring gear. They have some very smart people (they pay consultants in some areas very well, so the truly do have incredible people that are such a pleasure and inspiration to work with). They also have some incredible idiots at every point on the rank ladder. And occasionally they decide on policies so incredibly stupid they are equally awe-inspiring, because the idiots do much more damage than smart ones can fix.
I don't believe it is reasonably possible to predict what the military will do. Especially when it comes to policy.
Video filter: not AI, doesn't work as a video filter (aka searching youtube isn't actually searching video content), also nobody but NSA cares
Video subtitle: granted; pretty cool on the rare occasion it works in a usable way
News summaries: no, you can't do that
Talking machines: HMM existed in useful form in the 80s
Programming robots with 'AI' -no you absolutely cannot do this; anyone who tries to sell you this is a charlatan
Generating 'well composed' music/art: total nonsense -name one such piece of music or art. FWIIW LZW also generates canned music, and isn't 'AI'
Programming car to drive itself: no, you can't do this, despite the best efforts of Waymo's PR department to assert otherwise.
Drone flight; collision avoidance tasks & etc: nope total nonsense
"Watching timeseries:" this improves people's lives in what way? I'm aware of algorithms like SAX and so on; I'm also aware that moving average crossover is used a lot more often than ML based TS anomaly detection.
You have a big fat nothing burger above. 'AI' hasn't changed anyone's life in an appreciable way. The things you list above are ... very far from the singularity of mass unemployment that people seem to envision. Most of them actually seem to create more jobs. Most of the things you cite above visibly do not exist in the physical world, outside of PR press releases. The only stuff which does work, basically all it does is increase the level of totalitarian surveillance possible.