Comment by pgraf
6 months ago
I don‘t see any hint of AI being used here, but rather a handcrafted computer vision algorithm. Can anyone more involved in the matter elaborate if there was an actual AI model used?
6 months ago
I don‘t see any hint of AI being used here, but rather a handcrafted computer vision algorithm. Can anyone more involved in the matter elaborate if there was an actual AI model used?
We don't have a formal classification of which technologies can be considered "AI", but computer vision would feel like a valid entrant to me.
I thought AI meant "ML" + marketing.
I joke, but not. I'm a researcher and AI has been a pretty ambiguous term for years, mostly because intelligence is still not well defined. Unfortunately I think it's becoming less well defined in the last few years (while prior to that was getting better defined) via the (Fox) Mulder Effect.
Computer vision totally qualifies as AI as it can grant an agent artificially intelligent behavior.
The fuck it does.
for it to be AI, it needs some sort of ML basis. otherwise its just fancy "classical" computer vision.
(this is from someone who's been working in the field for far too long, and remembers a time before "deep", "ML" and "ai" were part of every paper. )
Based on what is said in the article, it seems like a VERY simple algorithm. It clusters the pixels in the image by color and reports any small blobs of unusual color. That's not AI by any of the stupid definitions we've come up with recently.
17 replies →
Maybe? I am currently going through 'artificial intelligence modern approach' by Russel&Norvig and from historical perspective alone, it seems vision would qualify.
It is just that the language drifted a little the way it did with cyber meaning something else to post 90s kids. So now AI seems to be mostly associated with llms, but not that long ago, AI seemed to almost include just use to of an algorithm.
I am not an expert in the field at all. I am just looking at stuff for personal growth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
I thought that AGI covered that. AGI to my mind doesn’t have to surpass human thinking. It just has to be categorically the same as it (it can be less powerful, or more). It has to be general. A chess machine in a box which can’t do anything else is not general.[1]
I’ve always been fine with calling things AI even though they are all jumbles of stats nonsense that wouldn’t be able to put their own pants on. Does a submarine swim? No, but that’s just the metaphor that the most vocal adherents are wedded to (at the hips). The metaphor doesn’t harm me. And to argue against it is like Chomsky trying to tell programming language designers that programming languages being languages is just a metaphor.
[1] EDIT: In other words it can be on the level of a crow. Or a dog. Just something general. Something that has some animalistic-like intelligence.
2 replies →
I had heard that quote many times but never know it's called "AI effect". Thanks!
I think at one time, a mechanical calculator would have been considered AI
Computer vision is a field of AI. But this is just an algorithm without any sort of learning or training process.
They might have needed to learn what a good difference threshold and cluster size is. It's hardly ML like fine-tuning CLIP embeddings is, but there are few solid differences: both explore visual embedding spaces with learned values. Granted, cluster thresholds are more likely to be manually learned, but they are both embedding spaces, with the main difference being dimensionality.
It's very vague for Wired to have used AI in the title, but it's more confusing to say "A previous headline on this piece incorrectly stated that the drone software used AI." - and not obviously correct either.
2 replies →
ML =/= AI.
Machine learning was widely considered to be a subset of AI, until it got a big resurgence almost 2 decades ago. Now some people use the terms interchangeably.
No, even before the current AI era classical computer vision was not considered to be "AI"... because it isn't. That's just a fact.
Deep learning is just a subset of AI which has officially been a thing since 1956. A chess algorithm is smarter than any human yet it's just classical search.
It's just that the "AI" word is no longer taboo
Wired have edited the headline to remove "AI".
Handcrafted CV algorithms and this level of autonomy is textbook AI, it’s just not Machine Learning.
What is AI?
I'm so tired of this argument. AI is a blurry term as it's used in the world. Who the fuck cares if this is "officially AI" or not? Can we just stop having this discussion?