TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Stupidity of Computers

181 点作者 mgunes超过 11 年前

22 条评论

tlarkworthy超过 11 年前
The never ending language learner (NELL) is able to build ontologies largely unsupervised with 87% accuracy from a base set of seed facts and access to the internet, indefinitely. [1]<p>Whilst it is unable to assign one symbol with multiple nouns, I think these are more engineering issues than anything. The overall architecture of NELL can be made smarter with horizontally scalable knowledge inference additions.<p>I think articles like this are going to be out of date fairly soon (if not already out of date privately).<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never-Ending_Language_Learning" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Never-Ending_Language_Learning</a>
评论 #7196537 未加载
评论 #7198041 未加载
kijin超过 11 年前
As an Aspie, I like the fact that my computer is &quot;stupid&quot;.<p>It understands my commands literally and executes them exactly the way I specified them, down to the last typo. It doesn&#x27;t try to second-guess my intentions, read my body language, or do any of the thousand other things that neurotypical people do to drive me crazy. After a full, stressful day of interacting with people, interacting with the &quot;stupid&quot; Terminal is a breath of fresh air. I&#x27;m sure a lot of other autistic people like computers for the same reason.<p>If my computer ever began to interpret my words and actions like an actual specimen of <i>homo sapiens</i> does, I&#x27;d probably throw it on the ground and destroy it with a jackhammer. When I buy an Intel processor, it&#x27;s because I want it to crunch numbers for me, not because I want a clone of that thing in the movie &quot;Her&quot;.
dmunoz超过 11 年前
&gt; Amazon also had your entire purchasing history, and its servers could instantly compute recommendations you would be likely to accept.<p>I wish. I have long been surprised at how poor Amazon recommendations are given that they have a large pool of actionable data: things I have actually purchased. What else could be a stronger signal?<p>I have even informed them which purchases not to use as a basis for recommendations, or when recommendations they have made are not interesting (at least, those that are made from my page while signed in, no ability to do so with the emails they send).<p>I preorder plenty of technical books, so Amazon could easily suck more money out of me if they kept me informed on up and coming books by authors I have purchased from, or in the specific area I purchase in. Instead, I seem to get weekly emails about the latest &quot;popular&quot; books in a very general area (e.g. programming).
评论 #7200005 未加载
评论 #7199874 未加载
tim333超过 11 年前
Good article but I disagree with his basic conclusion. To illustrate what I mean a couple of quotes:<p>&quot;... will increase the hold that formal ontologies have on us. They will be constructed by governments, by corporations, and by us in unequal measure,...&quot;<p>&quot;We will define and regiment our lives, including our social lives and our perceptions of ourselves, in ways that are conducive to what a computer can “understand.” Their dumbness will become ours.&quot;<p>I think the opposite is in fact happening, that academically for example there was a fixed system, in the UK for example you did GCSEs, A Levels, bachelor’s degree etc., which was something like a formal ontology constructed by government - physics shall be divided form chemistry and both shall be graded from A to E. Now we have all kinds of new forms of education like online courses, Wikipedia and so on so you can pretty much find an educational form to fit what you want to do. We&#x27;re moving more from a formal approved ontology to many competing ones where you can choose.<p>I&#x27;m not sure where posting on Hacker News fits into this. Maybe it is regimenting our lives, including our social lives and our perceptions of ourselves, in ways that are conducive to what a computer can understand!
david927超过 11 年前
I&#x27;ve never heard of the magazine n+1, but if this is typical of it, I&#x27;m deeply impressed. Particularly, some of the author&#x27;s conclusions are brilliant.<p>His only failure is when he tries to prognosticate. Ontologies are reductive only when they&#x27;re not contextual, for example.
评论 #7197166 未加载
评论 #7196569 未加载
评论 #7200856 未加载
danso超过 11 年前
&gt; <i>Consider how difficult it is to get a computer to do anything. To take a simple example, let’s say we would like to ask a computer to find the most commonly occurring word on a web page, perhaps as a hint to what the page might be about.</i><p>Um, has the OP ever tried getting a <i>human</i> to easily perform such a task?
评论 #7196254 未加载
评论 #7196281 未加载
评论 #7196221 未加载
bad_alloc超过 11 年前
I always wonder why computers should be intelligent. In essence they can add numbers pretty quickly. If you interpret the result of many such additions in a certain way you get a text, a video or an operating system. Wouldn&#x27;t it make more sense to build a machine for thinking instead of reusing one we built for calculating?
评论 #7197006 未加载
评论 #7200148 未加载
评论 #7198896 未加载
sp332超过 11 年前
ELIZA was actually an AI platform, which made it possible to write all kinds of AI bots. The &quot;doctor&quot; program was a tiny example program, like a hello-world for the platform which was capable of much more. Here&#x27;s a description of how ELIZA worked: <a href="https://csee.umbc.edu/courses/331/papers/eliza.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;csee.umbc.edu&#x2F;courses&#x2F;331&#x2F;papers&#x2F;eliza.html</a>
shangxiao超过 11 年前
If you&#x27;re like me and did not previously know about SHRDLU, then I highly recommend watching this demonstration:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo4RvYJYOzI" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=bo4RvYJYOzI</a>
评论 #7199118 未加载
skywhopper超过 11 年前
Humans have enough trouble understanding human language, especially in textual form. Context, body language, facial expression, shared experiences, cultural memes, power relationships, and internal motivations all play a role in how lanugage must be interpreted. Ambiguity, emotion, connotation, and double-meanings all play critical roles. It&#x27;s highly unlikely (I would say impossible) that computers can ever be made to fully understand human language.<p>To the extent that humans and computers are able to communicate with each other, it will be via a cooperatively developed human-computer language that will be influenced as much by the computers as by the humans.<p>That shared compromise is true today via programming languages and the stilted way we must interact with Google Voice Search and Siri. And while those contours will change over the forthcoming decades, it will continue to be true for all time.<p>As humans augment themselves with digital computing power and as computer technology itself evolves, things will become very different, but the fundamental disconnect will always be there.
评论 #7197677 未加载
dsego超过 11 年前
What about this?<p>Building Brains to Understand the World&#x27;s Data (google tech talk):<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y43qwS8fl4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=4y43qwS8fl4</a><p>The result is <a href="http://www.groksolutions.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.groksolutions.com&#x2F;</a>
arocks超过 11 年前
Surprising that the article doesn&#x27;t talk about the modern day equivalent of Ask Jeeves:<p><a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=How+old+is+President+Clinton%3F" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wolframalpha.com&#x2F;input&#x2F;?i=How+old+is+President+Cl...</a>
utopkara超过 11 年前
Some coconut farmers use trained monkeys to harvest crops. I am sure a monkey would make a weak opponent in a fencing match, but they are pretty good with planning and motor skills in addition to being great climbers. In this sense, computers (and AI) of our time is very useful. Furthermore, computers and programs are super flexible and they do not have hard coded limits to their capabilities as humans and monkeys have. As humans, we might be the all powerful masters for now, but compared to the improving AI we&#x27;ll soon be what the SHRDLU is to Watson.
yetanotherphd超过 11 年前
Is there anything that grasshoppers eat that isn&#x27;t kosher? Maybe Watson is much smarter than we think.
评论 #7197033 未加载
评论 #7196414 未加载
评论 #7198987 未加载
agentultra超过 11 年前
The stupidity of computers is starting to get frustrating. As a software developer working on a distributed storage system, I&#x27;ve profiled my placement algorithm and after some thought have decided there is a better strategy based on a common use-case scenario. I create a branch in my repository and try out my changes. In the mean time my colleagues have made changes to the development branch I diverged from. My computer cannot seem to be able to run the differential of the profiling function against my diverged branches and tell me whether my changes validate my assumptions from a simple query (nor whether the combined changes would continue to validate my assumptions before I merge them... it couldn&#x27;t even construct the profiling function for me).<p>Ontologies seem like just the tip of the iceberg.<p>It seems more likely to me that instead of a general-AI we&#x27;re more likely to be able to map and simulate a human brain within a computer.
jplur超过 11 年前
Well written article. I wrote a long comment about my views, sat for a bit, re-read the article, then deleted my banter because it wasn&#x27;t adding anything interesting, but I do want to say these themes have been on my mind lately and I appreciate seeing them discussed so well.
evunveot超过 11 年前
<i>A reductive ontology of the world emerges, containing aspects both obvious and dubious.</i><p>Now I&#x27;m contemplating what an opposite-of-reductive ontology would look like (if that even makes semantic sense). An ontology that enriches rather than simplifies. It&#x27;s hard to think about.
TrainedMonkey超过 11 年前
What I got out of the article is that computers are good at doing what they are programmed to do. Problem is not bad computers, but rather the fact that we do not know how to program computer for general intelligence.
评论 #7196970 未加载
评论 #7200871 未加载
dchichkov超过 11 年前
I&#x27;d like to place a bet, but unfortunately, there&#x27;s no point in placing a bet stating that by a certain date AIs would beat median human intelligence by huge margins. It would be like placing a bet on a prediction of any other extinction event. Impossible to collect, even if the prediction is right.<p>On the other hand, just for the fun of it, a couple of other predictions. Here: &quot;true, human level AIs would not be developed until 8Tb RAM sticks would become a commodity&quot;. Another: &quot;true, high fidelity, multi-censorial brain-computer interface will never be built&quot;.
评论 #7200934 未加载
评论 #7200949 未加载
jotm超过 11 年前
Computers aren&#x27;t stupid, they&#x27;re only really good at math. And trying to understand human language using math is hard.
评论 #7199255 未加载
评论 #7200928 未加载
colund超过 11 年前
My smart far-away and very old relative once said during the dot com boom: &quot;computers are just tools, nothing else, people seem to see something magical in computers that is just not there&quot;. She was a very clever old lady. Still I love their logical magic and hope computers will never cease to amaze me.
tmikaeld超过 11 年前
Hmm...<p>Wall of text.. ok, challenge accepted!<p><i>read</i><p><i>scroll</i><p><i>read</i><p><i>scroll</i><p><i>read</i><p><i>scroll</i><p><i>read</i><p>MORE!?...<p><i>scroll</i><p>NOT MORE I GET IT!<p>...computers are stupid but at least they don&#x27;t give up!
评论 #7196275 未加载
评论 #7196624 未加载
评论 #7195993 未加载