
AI (Deep Learning) explained simply - ghosthamlet
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-deep-learning-explained-simply-fabio-ciucci
======
AstralStorm
Yes yes, automation will increase number of people who will be paid... say
what? That never happened in history! We need actual data rather than thought
experiments here, and we could actually get it quite easily for last
industrial revolution. Wars kinda break the data but it is still workable. The
economical assumption is that people can retrain. This may no longer be true
when complexity of the job hits a certain level or any random person can
contribute only a tiny amount of value. (As opposed to outliers.)

ML results are also logically and formally verifiable, just like with human
brain. There are higher order structures in both.

Humans can and do visualise at least 4 dimensions. Time is not as easy but
still possible to visualise by anyone, higher levels are done as projections.
We wouldn't get anywhere in math and especially algebra otherwise.

Even AI rarely directly work with all dimensions, reducing datasets to
interesting features internally. Otherwise even with a relatively small number
of dimensions curse of dimensionality makes calculation impossible. Much like
with NP-hard problems. Quantum computers could perhaps skip over this but
they're not practical yet.

Reprogramming AI reliably is even harder than understanding it. A hacked
system is likely no longer an intelligence, unless it is just completely
replaced. (Like a human impostor, we can reasonably well detect it too.) Such
tampering is easy to detect or requires a very sophisticated understanding of
the whole system. Which the piece asserted we "cannot have".

Current systems are easy to hack precisely because they are not intelligent at
all. Specifically, intelligence robustly handles unexpected situations.
Including attempts to tamper with it or many kinds of damage. For a self
driving car tampering would be reasonably easily detected by simulation that
was not used to train ML. (Can't do that with human minds yet.) A dumb self
check. Very similar to what you do to stroke patients. The checks can even be
supplied by a set of trusted third parties for any given kind of ML system.
(Or you could have even formal logic verification that low level algorithms
work correctly.)

And if sophisticated understanding is involved, the actor is either an
unrecognised AI genius, an insider or a large actor - megacorporation or
government. That narrows the set substantially. Or of course the AI just made
a mistake, but for sophisticated AI honest mistakes are about as easy to
detect as in humans.

This piece is actually insulting to the reader, written from a high horse and
quite wrong plus unsubstantiated, and downplaying what we have already
achieved or can achieve.

~~~
dimmuborgir
Sorry but where does he say automation will increase number of people who will
be paid?

