Despite the hype, AI is stuck

Interesting essay by Gary Marcus. I particularly like this bit:

Although the field of A.I. is exploding with microdiscoveries, progress toward the robustness and flexibility of human cognition remains elusive. Not long ago, for example, while sitting with me in a cafe, my 3-year-old daughter spontaneously realized that she could climb out of her chair in a new way: backward, by sliding through the gap between the back and the seat of the chair. My daughter had never seen anyone else disembark in quite this way; she invented it on her own — and without the benefit of trial and error, or the need for terabytes of labeled data.

Presumably, my daughter relied on an implicit theory of how her body moves, along with an implicit theory of physics — how one complex object travels through the aperture of another. I challenge any robot to do the same. A.I. systems tend to be passive vessels, dredging through data in search of statistical correlations; humans are active engines for discovering how things work.

Marcus thinks that a new paradigm is needed for AI that places “top down” knowledge (cognitive models of the world and how it works) and “bottom up” knowledge (the kind of raw information we get directly from our senses) on equal footing. “Deep learning”, he writes,

“is very good at bottom-up knowledge, like discerning which patterns of pixels correspond to golden retrievers as opposed to Labradors. But it is no use when it comes to top-down knowledge. If my daughter sees her reflection in a bowl of water, she knows the image is illusory; she knows she is not actually in the bowl. To a deep-learning system, though, there is no difference between the reflection and the real thing, because the system lacks a theory of the world and how it works. Integrating that sort of knowledge of the world may be the next great hurdle in A.I., a prerequisite to grander projects like using A.I. to advance medicine and scientific understanding.”

Yep: ‘superintelligence’ is farther away than we think.

Posted in AI

Quote of the Day

“More than two years ago, soon after Donald Trump entered the presidential race, I noted online that no one like him—with no political, military, judicial, or public-service experience, with no known expertise on policy matters, with a trail of financial and personal complications—had ever before become president. Therefore, I said, it wasn’t going to happen this time. Quite obviously that was wrong. Penitent and determined to learn from my errors, I’ve avoided any predictions involving Trump and his circles ever since.”

James Fallows

Links for 29/7/2017

  1. Tim Harford: We are still waiting for the robot revolution. More on the lessons of the ATM machine. In the same vein as Tyler Cowen’s Bloomberg column yesterday. This is getting to be a trend.

  2. Diane Coyle: Economics for a Moral End. Nice review of Ian Kumekawa’s The First Serious Optimist: A. C. Pigou and the Birth of Welfare Economics. Pigou’s misfortune was that he was eclipsed by Keynes, and so undeservedly forgotten.

  3. Simon Wren-Lewis: Why Owen Jones is wrong about Brexit. Terrific post, taking down the arguments of the emerging ‘re-leaver’ lobby. I particularly like this: “It is an utterly defeatist argument: we must let people harm themselves because only then might they learn that they were mistaken in what they wanted. A much more progressive policy is to persuade people they are wrong.”

Links for 28/7/2017

  1. In a Robot Economy, All Humans Will Be Marketers. Tyler Cowen talking sense about robotics. The impact won’t be devastating in the way doomsayers think. But some of the stuff humans will be doing (like marketing) may not be all that rewarding either. Covers some of the same ground as David Autor’s article.

  2. The Agony and the Anxiety of The New York Times. Vanity Fair piece evincing a certain amount of glee at the transition-pains of the New York Times as it loses many of its backroom editors and squeezes office space to reduce costs. But the paper is also hiring 100 more journalists and having the time of its life. Trump is a gift that now keeps on giving.

  3. Ctrl + Alt + Del. Conservatives must reboot capitalism. Thoughtful essay by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I don’t think any member of the current Cabinet could have written anything half as interesting. Reminded me of David Sainsbury’s book Progressive Capitalism: How To Achieve Economic Growth, Liberty and Social Justice.

  4. Emily Bell and Taylor Owen, The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley reengineered journalism. Useful report on how Tech platforms have become publishers in a short space of time, leaving news organisations confused about their own future. That’s if they have one. It was always a crazy idea to think that putting your stuff on Facebook would give you a long-term future as a publisher. Think of it as going for a swim with a crocodile.

Quote of the Day

“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands”.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, 1891

If at first you don’t succeed…

This morning’s Observer column:

There were just two problems with Glass. The first is that it made you look like a dork. Although Google teamed up with the company that made Ray-Bans, among other things, if you were wearing Glass then you became the contemporary version of those 1950s engineers who always had several pens and a propelling pencil in their top jacket pockets. The second problem was the killer one: Glass made everyone around you feel uneasy. They thought the technology was creepy, intrusive and privacy-destroying. Bouncers wouldn’t let wearers – whom they called “Glassholes” – into clubs. The maître d’ would discover that the table you thought you had booked was suddenly unavailable. And so on.

In the end, Google bit the bullet and withdrew the product in January 2015. Privacy advocates and fashionistas alike cheered. Technology had been put in its place. But if, like this columnist, you believe that technology has the potential to improve human lives, then your feelings were mixed…

Read on

Links for 19/7/2017

  1. The Digital Tow-bar. Lovely idea by Quentin Stafford-Fraser. A realistic application for self-driving vehicles.

  2. Roger Sollenberger: How the Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google to Fool Americans. Or how SEO meets politics.

  3. Andrew Rawnsley: Theresa May could still have a future – as a human sponge. Nice historical parallel: William Petty (2nd Earl of Shelburne) was the Prime Minister who had to mop up after Lord North lost the American colonies. Petty had to negotiate with the victors. Theresa May reminds Rawnsley of the hapless Petty. Me too.

  4. Tom Russell: How to talk to your teen about colluding with Russia. Useful advice for a naive president.

Links for 17/7/2017

  1. As a Guru, Ayn Rand May Have Limits. Ask Travis Kalanick. The obsession of Silicon Valley types (and Donald Trump’s crowd) with Rand passeth all understanding.

  2. David Brooks: Moral Vacuum in the House of Trump. “It took a few generations of the House of Trump to produce Donald Jr.”

  3. New law would force Facebook and Google to give police access to encrypted messages. The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has whatsApp and other encrypted messaging systems in his sights. It’s insisting that the companies have to give it warranted access. But how? After all, WhatsApp doesn’t have the keys. Charles Arthur has an interesting idea. “This isn’t totally absurd”, he writes. “The clue is in Turnbull’s quote about “updates on your phone” and Brandis’s “obligation.. to provide appropriate assistance”. What’s likely to happen is that targeted individuals will receive SIM updates which let the authorities spy on them. Simple as that. If you read the above (and the story) in that light, it becomes feasible – sensible, even. If you think they want to have access to everyone’s encrypted messages all the time, you’re overthinking it.”

  4. Scholars Cry Foul at Their Inclusion on List of Academics Paid by Google. Looks as though that scoop by an advocacy group may be unravelling.

Automation is more about tasks than ‘jobs’

This morning’s Observer column:

We are currently going through one of those periodic phases of “automation anxiety” when we become convinced that the robots are coming for our jobs. These fears are routinely pooh-poohed by historians and economists. The historians point out that machines have been taking away jobs since the days of Elizabeth I – who refused to grant William Lee a patent on his stocking frame on the grounds that it would take work away from those who knitted by hand. And while the economists concede that machines do indeed destroy some jobs, they point out that the increased productivity that they enable has generally created more new jobs (and industries) than they displaced.

Faced with this professional scepticism, tech evangelists and doom-mongers fall back on the same generic responses: that historical scepticism is based on the complacent assumption that the past is a reliable guide to the future; and that “this time is different”. And whereas in the past it was lower-skilled work that was displaced, the jobs that will be lost in the coming wave of smart machines are ones that we traditionally regard as “white-collar” or middle-class. And that would be a very big deal, because if there’s no middle class the prospects for the survival of democracy are poor.

What’s striking about this fruitless, ongoing debate is how few participants seem to be interested in the work that people actually do…

Read on