Recent links discussing limits on a few current hot technology fields that some people seem to be overly optimistic about.
Machine learning algorithms don't yet understand things the way humans do
- with sometimes disastrous consequences.
Melanie Mitchell
As someone who has worked in A.I. for decades, I've witnessed the
failure of similar predictions of imminent human-level A.I., and
I'm certain these latest forecasts will fall short as well. The
challenge of creating humanlike intelligence in machines remains
greatly underestimated. Today's A.I. systems sorely lack the
essence of human intelligence: understanding the situations we
experience, being able to grasp their meaning.
...
Anyone who works with A.I. systems knows that behind the facade of
humanlike visual abilities, linguistic fluency and game-playing
prowess, these programs do not - in any humanlike way -
understand the inputs they process or the outputs they produce. The
lack of such understanding renders these programs susceptible to
unexpected errors and undetectable attacks.
...
Researchers have been experimenting for decades with methods for
imbuing A.I. systems with intuitive common sense and robust humanlike
generalization abilities, but there has been little progress
in this very difficult endeavor.
Podcast audio with transcript.
Rodney Brooks, emeritus professor of robotics at MIT, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the future of robots and artificial intelligence. Brooks argues that we both under-appreciate and over-appreciate the impact of innovation. He applies this insight to the current state of driverless cars and other changes people are expecting to change our daily lives in radical ways. He also suggests that the challenges of developing truly intelligent robots and technologies will take much longer than people expect, giving human beings time to adapt to the effects. Plus a cameo from Isaac Newton.
The proposed strategy relies on manipulating with high precision an unimaginably huge number
In light of all this, it's natural to wonder: When will useful
quantum computers be constructed? The most optimistic experts
estimate it will take 5 to 10 years. More cautious ones predict
20 to 30 years. (Similar predictions have been voiced, by the way,
for the last 20 years.) I belong to a tiny minority that answers,
"Not in the foreseeable future." Having spent decades conducting
research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, I've developed
my very pessimistic view. It's based on an understanding of the
gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to
ever make quantum computing work.
...
There is a tremendous gap between the rudimentary but very hard
experiments that have been carried out with a few qubits and the
extremely developed quantum-computing theory, which relies on
manipulating thousands to millions of qubits to calculate anything
useful. That gap is not likely to be closed anytime soon.
Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life.
If it could grow and divide, that would be a tremendous step. But many argue that to truly represent a living system, it would also have to evolve and adapt to its environment. This is the goal with the most unpredictable results and also the biggest challenges, says Schwille. "A thing that just makes itself all the time is not life - although I would be happy with that!" she says. "For a cell to be living, it needs to develop new functionality."