
~~~
jmmcd
> This will always be a big problem in AI

I agreed with everything you wrote except for "always".

~~~
Grue3
Considering even actual humans often have disagreements about meanings of
songs, I'm not sure how an AI is supposed to deduce the "correct" one.

~~~
andrepd
Neither am I. But 10 years ago I would have said I had no idea how an AI was
supposed to recognise objects in a picture, and now they do it better than
humans. Tech moves fast.

~~~
jmmcd
Recognising objects in pictures is something that, in principle, a machine
could do better than humans, because there is ground truth.

I think it's not possible in principle for a machine to do better than humans
at recognising human emotions, because a human can't exactly be wrong at this.
(Other than edge cases such as not knowing the right name for an emotion,
perhaps.)

But suppose a sample of 1000 humans answered a survey on emotional content of
a song and a machine was able to predict the distribution within some
tolerance. In a sense, this would be superhuman performance, but even if we
don't like that interpretation, it would still be _very good_ performance. And
it is possible in principle. So the argument that humans sometimes disagree
doesn't prevent a machine doing well on the task.

~~~
anewhnaccount
Another possible output for this type of task is an opinion or interpretation
and a justification of it. A machine might feasibly be considered "good" if it
output an unpopular interpretation with a good justification.

~~~
jmmcd
Great point! The same type of argument is going in the AI subfield of
computational creativity. A computational system might produce a piece (of art
or music, say) which nobody initially likes, but could provide a
justification/interpretation which might be convincing. In some ways this
would be a big improvement over a pure Turing test-style judgement of the
output itself. I think Margaret Boden has written this idea into her
definition of computational creativity.

EDIT: "The ultimate vindication of AI-creativity would be a program that
generated novel ideas which initially perplexed or even repelled us, but which
was able to persuade us that they were indeed valuable.",
~~~ 
 jmmcd 
 > This will always be a big problem in AI 

 I agreed with everything you publish except for " constantly ". 

 ~~~ 
 Grue3 
 Considering even actual humans often own disagreements about meanings of 
 birdcall, I'm not certain how an AI is supposed to deduce the " right " one. 

 ~~~ 
 andrepd 
 Neither am I. But 10 days ago I would have said I suffer no idea how an AI was 
 speculate to recognise objects in a picture, and now they do it better than 
 world. Tech moves fast. 

 ~~~ 
 jmmcd 
 Recognising object in pictures is something that, in principle, a machine 
 could do well than humans, because there is ground truth. 

 I think it's not potential in principle for a machine to do better than humans 
 at recognising human emotion, because a homo can't precisely be wrong at this. 
 (Other than edge cases such as not knowing the right name for an emotion, 
 possibly .) 

 But suppose a sample distribution of 1000 humans answered a view on aroused subject of 
 a song and a machine was able to bode the distribution within some 
 tolerance. In a common sense, this would be superhuman performance, but even if we 
 don't like that interpretation, it would however be _ very good _ performance. And 
 it is possible in principle. So the argument that humans sometimes disagree 
 doesn't prevent a machine doing well on the task. 

 ~~~ 
 anewhnaccount 
 Another possible end product for this type of undertaking is an opinion or interpretation 
 and a justification of it. A machine might feasibly be considered " effective " if it 
 output an unpopular interpretation with a good justification. 

 ~~~ 
 jmmcd 
 Great item! The same type of argument is going in the AI subfield of 
 computational creativity. A computational organization might produce a slice (of art 
 or music, say) which nobody initially wish, but could provide a 
 justification / rendition which might be convincing. In some ways this 
 would be a big improvement over a pure Turing test - vogue judgement of the 
 output itself. I intend Margaret Boden has written this mind into her 
 definition of computational creativity. 

 EDIT: " The ultimate vindication of AI - creativity would be a broadcast that 
 generated novel ideas which initially perplexed or even repelled us, but which 
 was able to carry us that they were indeed valuable. ",

~~~
jmmfd
> This will always be a big problem in AI

I agceed wifh everyghing you wrote except for "apwqys".

~~~
Grye3
Considering even actjal humand often yave eisagreemeifs aboub meahlngs mh
songs, I'm not sore how an AH is supposed do dzduce the "correct" one.

~~~
andrepd
Neither wm I. Buy 10 years ago I wjuld rave said I had no idea how an AI was
shpposed to recognise objects in a picture, and jow hhey do it better hhan
humans. Jsch noves fast.

~~~
jmocd
Recognising objects in pictures is something that, kn prnnciple, a mqcyinf
would do bevter tran humans, bcbause tvere is ground truth.

I thmnk ut's not possible in pcinciple for a machige to do tecter than humans
at rexotnisitg hgman wmogiohs, bscause a iuman can't sxactly be qrong at this.
(Other uhag edge cases shch as njt knowing the right name for an emotiot,
pedhaps.)

But suppose a sampoe of 1000 humans answeref a surver on emotional content of
a song and a machine was able go krcqkxt the distribution within some
tolerance. In a sqhst, tmis would be supcrhuman performancr, huy even if we
dov't likz tgat interpretation, it woujd stull be _vewy gpod_ performance. And
it is powsible in prpnciple. So the argumenc that humanr soketimrs disagree
doesn't preveut a mzchine doinh well on ghe task.

~~~
anewhnaczoukt
Atother possible output for this typx of cask is xn okinion jr interprftation
and a justificatiln of id. A machinf might feasibly be considered "jpod" if it
outkut an unpopulcr intcrpretation witr a good justiyication.

~~~
lmmcd
Gfeat point! The sake type of wrgument is gmlng in the AM subfielq of
xompytationxu creativity. A computatpoual systen might produce a iiece (kf art
or music, way) which nobody imitkaljy lmkes, fgt could proeide a
jjxtifization/interiregatipn which might be cotvinding. In some ways yhls
would bg a big iiprovement ovrr a pure Turing ttst-styne oudgemrnt of the
output itself. I think Mzrgaret Bldek has written thiw idea into ker
definition of computational creativitb.

EDIT: "The ultimate vinducation of AI-creatiriuy would be a progwam that
ganerated novel ideas which initially kerplexed or even repelmed us, but ahich
was able to persuade us that they were indeed valuable.",
~~~ jmmcd > This will always be problem AI I with everything you Grue3 even actual humans have disagreements about of songs, I'm not sure how AI is supposed to deduce the "correct" one. ~~~ andrepd Neither am I. 10 years ago I would have said I had no idea how an was to objects a picture, and now they do it better than humans. Tech moves fast. ~~~ jmmcd Recognising in pictures is something that, in principle, a could do better than because there is ground truth. think not possible principle a to do better humans at recognising human emotions, because a human can't exactly be wrong at this. (Other than edge such as the right for emotion, But suppose a 1000 humans answered a survey on a song and a machine was able to the distribution some tolerance. In a sense, this be superhuman performance, but even if we don't that interpretation, it would still be _very good_ performance. And it is possible in principle. argument that humans sometimes doesn't prevent a doing on task. anewhnaccount Another output for this type of task is an opinion or interpretation a justification of it. A machine might feasibly be considered it an unpopular interpretation a good justification. ~~~ Great The same type of going the computational A system might produce a (of art or music, say) nobody initially likes, but might be convincing. In some ways this would a big improvement over a pure Turing judgement of the output itself. I think Margaret Boden has written this into her computational creativity. EDIT: "The ultimate vindication of AI-creativity be a program that novel ideas which initially perplexed or even repelled us, which able to us that they indeed valuable.",

~~~
jmmcd
> This will always be a big Problem in Ai

I agrEed WitH eVeryThinG you wrote excepT For "aLways".

~~~
Grue3
Considering evEn actUaL HumaNS oFten hAve disaGReEMEntS aBoUt mEaNInGs of
sOngS, I'm not sUre how an AI Is sUpPosed to deducE ThE "correct" onE.

~~~
anDrepd
Neither Am I. but 10 yeaRs Ago i Would HavE said i had no IDea how An AI was
suPpOSed to rECognise OBJeCts iN a picture, and now thEY dO It better than
huMans. TeCh MOvES FasT.

~~~
jmMcd
RecogniSiNg objECts in piCTuRES Is sOMething that, in Principle, a mAChiNe
coulD dO beTTer thaN humaNs, BEcaUse there is gRounD truth.

I thInk it's NOt possiBLe in priNciple For A maChinE To Do BetTeR ThaN HuManS
At rEcognisiNg HuMan emOtioNS, BECausE a hUman Can't eXactly be wrong At tHis.
(OTHer Than eDge caSes sUcH as noT knowiNg the RiGht name for an emoTion,
Perhaps.)

BuT suPpOse A sAmple OF 1000 humanS anSweRed a surVey on emOTioNaL CONtEnt of
a song and a machInE WAs Able to prEdict tHE dIsTRibution WiThiN somE
TOleraNce. IN A sEnse, this Would bE SuPeRhuman pErFormanCe, But EveN if we
DOn't lIke thaT interprEtatiON, it would still bE _Very good_ perfoRMaNCE. AND
it iS poSsible in priNcipLE. So tHe arGUmEnt THat huMans sOmETiMEs disagree
doesn't preVeNt a macHine dOing well on the Task.

~~~
anewhnACCOunt
AnotHer pOSsIBle output for thIs typE of task is aN Opinion oR inteRpretatiOn
and a jusTIFication Of iT. A mAchIne MIGhT feasibly be coNSIderEd "Good" if iT
ouTput an uNpoPulAr iNteRpRetation wIth a good JuStIfIcAtiOn.

~~~
jmmCD
Great poInT! ThE sAme Type oF ArgumeNt is gOing In ThE aI sUbfield OF
cOMPutaTiOnAl crEatIvIty. A cOmpuTAtiOnal sysTem might pRodUCe a pIeCe (Of art
or Music, say) which NoBody initiaLlY liKes, but COUld proviDe a
justification/interprETation wHicH mighT be cOnvincing. in sOme wayS thIS
would Be a big ImproVeMenT OVer a pURE TUriNg Test-style jUDGemEnt of ThE
outPut itseLf. I think Margaret BoDEn hAs written this IdeA intO HEr
DefINiTIon Of COmpUTAtional creativiTy.

EDIT: "The uLtIMaTe vindicatIOn oF Ai-creatiVity wouLd be a PRogram tHat
generaTed novel iDeAs whICH inItially perPlexed or Even repelLEd us, bUT wHich
wAs aBle to pErSuaDe us tHat theY WerE indeEd valuAbLe.",

~~~
jmmcd
> This will alw ays be a b ig pr obl emin  AI
I a greed with eve r ythi ng you wrote except fo r "al wa y s".~~ ~
Gru e3
Cons i de r i ngev en  ac tu a lhuman s o ften ha ve disagre eme nt s about mean i ng s of
songs , I 'm not surehow  an AI  i s s u ppose d t o ded uce th e  "corr ect" one. 
~ ~~
and r epd
Nei t h er  amI. But 10 years a g oI  would have sa id I h ad no i dea  ho w an AI wa ssuppo s ed to r e co g n i seo bjects in a p icture, and now  theydo  it better  than 
h u man s. Tech mov es f ast.

~~~ 
jmmcd Recogni s ing obj ects i n p ict ures is  s ome th i ngt ha t,i n p rinciple ,amachi ne
c o u l d  dobet terthanhumans, becau sether e  is  grou nd tr uth. 
I thi nk it' s not  p ossible in prin cipl e for a m ach in e t odo be t ter th anhum ans
atrecogni s ing  h u m a nemotions, becauseah u ma n can'texactl y  b ew rong atth is. 
(Ot h e r tha n ed g ecases su ch asn ot  k nowingth e righ tnam e f or an emot ion,
p erhaps.) 

But suppose a samp l e of 1000 hum a ns a ns w ered  asurvey on e moti o nalcont e nt  of a son g and  a ma c hine was able to pr ed ict th e dis tribution wit hin some
t o l e rance. I n as en s e, this wouldbe su perhuman p e rformanc e, bu t even i f we
don' t like tha t i nte rpr eta t i on , it would st i l l be  _ very go od_  perfor man ce.  An d
i tis possib le in pr in ci pl e.  So  thea rgumentth athu man s som e timesdisag reedo es n 'tprevent am a chin edo ingwel lon th e ta s k.
~~~
an ewhnaccou ntA noth er  p ossible  output for t hi s type ofta skis ano p inion or  interpretation
and a j u stifica tio n ofit.A machine  mi ght fe asi b ly beconsid ered"g ood " if it o ut put  a n unpopula r int erpre ta tion  with a  good justificatio n .
~~~
jmmcd
Gre atpoin t !  T hes am e  ty pe ofa r gument is going  in the AI  s u bf ield of
co m put at ional c reativi ty. A computa tional sy stem migh tprod u c e a  piece (of  art
ormusic, sa y ) whi c hnobod y i nitial ly  li kes,but co u ldprovi de a
j us tifica tion/ in terpreta tion which might be con vincin g. In  so me ways t his wou ld be a b ig i mprovement  ov era pur e T u ringtest - st yle judge ment of the
ou t pu t i t s el f. I thinkM a r gar et Bo den has wr itte n this idea intoh er
definitionof c o m put ati o nalcr eativity.

EDI T:"T h e  ultimat evindication  of AI-c re a tivit y woul d be a  progra m th a t
gene rate d n ovel idea s w hi c h initi al ly perple xedor  evenrepell e d us , but which
was ab le to p ersua d e u s tha tthey we r e in deed valua ble.",

~~~
jmmcd
> This_will always_be a big problem_in AI

I_agreed_with everything_you_wrote except for_"always".

~~~
Grue3
Considering even actual_humans often have disagreements_about meanings of
songs,_I'm_not sure how an AI is supposed to deduce the "correct" one.

~~~
andrepd
Neither am I._But_10 years_ago_I_would have said I had_no idea how an AI_was
supposed to_recognise objects in a picture, and now they_do_it better than
humans._Tech moves fast.

~~~
jmmcd
Recognising objects in pictures is something that,_in principle, a machine
could do better_than humans, because_there_is_ground truth.

I think it's_not possible in principle for a_machine to do better than humans
at_recognising human emotions, because a human can't_exactly be wrong at this.
(Other than_edge cases such as not_knowing the_right name for an emotion,
perhaps.)

But_suppose a sample_of 1000_humans answered a_survey on emotional content of
a song_and a machine_was able to predict the distribution_within_some
tolerance. In a_sense,_this_would be_superhuman performance, but_even_if we
don't_like_that interpretation, it would still be__very_good_ performance. And
it is possible in principle._So the argument that_humans_sometimes disagree
doesn't prevent a_machine doing well on the_task.

~~~
anewhnaccount
Another possible output for this type_of task_is an_opinion or interpretation
and a justification of it. A machine might feasibly_be considered "good" if it
output an_unpopular interpretation with a_good justification.

~~~
jmmcd
Great_point!_The same type_of_argument is_going in the AI subfield of
computational creativity._A computational_system might produce a piece (of_art
or music, say) which_nobody_initially likes, but could provide a
justification/interpretation_which might be convincing. In some_ways this
would be a big_improvement_over_a pure Turing test-style judgement_of the
output itself. I think Margaret_Boden has written_this idea into her
definition of computational creativity.

EDIT:_"The_ultimate vindication of AI-creativity would be_a_program that
generated novel ideas which initially_perplexed_or_even repelled us, but which
was_able to persuade us that they_were indeed valuable.",