# Self-Driving Cars Are Causing Scientists to Sweat The Possibility of Another AI Winter



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Self-driving cars. Faster MRI scans, interpreted by robotic radiologists. Mind readingand x-ray vision. Artificial intelligence promises to permanently alter world. (In some ways, it already has. Just ask this AI scheduling assistant.)

Artificial intelligence can take many forms. But it's roughly defined as a computer system capable of tackling human tasks like sensory perception and decision-making. *Since its earliest days, AI has fallen prey to cycles of extreme hype-and subsequent collapse.* While recent technological advances may finally put an end to this boom-and-bust pattern, cheekily termed an "AI winter," some scientists remain convinced winter is coming again.

*What is an AI winter?*
Humans have been pondering the potential of artificial intelligence for thousands of years. Ancient Greeks believed, for example, that a bronze automaton named Talos protected the island of Crete from maritime adversaries. But AI only moved from the mythical realm to the real world in the last half-century, beginning with legendary computer scientist Alan Turing's foundational 1950 essay asked and provided a framework for answering the provocative question, "Can machines think?"

At that time, the United States was in the midst of the Cold War. Congressional representatives decided to invest heavily in artificial intelligence as part of a larger security strategy. The specific emphasis in those days was on translation, specifically Russian-to-English and English-to-Russian. The years 1954 to 1966 were, according to computational linguist W. John Hutchins' history of machine translation, "the decade of optimism," as many prominent scientists believed breakthroughs were imminent and deep-pocketed sponsors flooded the field with grants.

But the breakthroughs didn't come as quickly as promised. In 1966, seven scientists on the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee published a government-ordered report concluding that machine translation was slower,* more expensive*, and less accurate than human translation. *Funding was abruptly cancelled* and, Hutchins wrote, machine translation came "to a virtual end&#8230; for over a decade." Things only got worse from there. In 1969, Congress mandated that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, fund only research with a direct bearing on military efforts, putting the kibosh on numerous exploratory and basic scientific projects, including AI research, which had previously been funded by DARPA.

"During AI winter, AI research program had to disguise themselves under different names in order to continue receiving funding," according to a history of computing from the University of Washington. ("Informatics" and "machine learning," the paper notes, were among the euphemisms that emerged in this era.) The late 1970s saw a mild resurgence of artificial intelligence with the fleeting success of the Lisp machine, an efficient, specialized, and expensive workstation that many thought was the future of AI hardware. But hopes were dashed by the late 1980s-this time by the rise of the desktop computer and resurgent skepticism among government funding sources about AI's potential. The second cold snap lasted into the mid-1990s and researchers have been ice-picking their way out ever since.

The last two decades have been a period of almost-unrivaled optimism about artificial intelligence. Hardware, namely high-powered microprocessors, and new techniques, specifically those under the umbrella of deep learning, have finally created artificial intelligence that wows consumers and funders alike. A neural network can learn tasks after it's carefully trained on existing examples. To use a now-classic example, you can feed a neural net thousands of images, some labeled "cat" others labeled "no cat," and train the machine to identify "cats" and "no cats" in pictures on its own. Related deep learning strategies also underpin emerging technology in bioinformatics and pharmacology, natural language processing in Alexa or Google Home devices, and even the mechanical eyeballs self-driving cars use to see.

*Is winter coming again?*
But it's those very self-driving cars that are causing scientists to sweat the possibility of another AI winter. In 2015, Tesla founder Elon Musk said a fully-autonomous car would hit the roads in 2018. (He technically still has four months.) General Motors is betting on 2019. And Ford says buckle up for 2021.* But these predictions look increasingly misguided. And, because they were made public, they may have serious consequences for the field.* Couple the hype with the recent death of a pedestrian in Arizona, who was killed in March by an Uber in driverless mode, and things look increasingly frosty for applied AI.

Fears of an impending winter are hardly skin deep. Deep learning has slowed in recent years, according to critics like AI researcher Filip Piekniewski. The "vanishing gradient problem," has shrunk, but still stops some neural nets from learning past a certain point, stymying human trainers despite their best efforts. And artificial intelligence's struggle with "generalization," persists: A machine trained on house cat photos _can_ identify more house cats, but it can't extrapolate that knowledge to, say, a prowling lion.

These hiccups pose a fundamental problem to self-driving vehicles. "If we were shooting for the early 2020s for us to be at the point where you could launch autonomous driving, you'd need to see every year, at the moment, more than a 60 percent reduction [in safety driver interventions] every year *to get us down to 99.9999 percent safety,*" said Andrew Moore, Carnegie Mellon University's dean of computer science, on a recent episode of the _Recode Decode_ podcast. "I don't believe that things are progressing anywhere near that fast." While some years we may reduce the need for humans by 20 percent, in other years, it's in the single digits, potentially pushing the arrival date back by decades.

Much like actual seasonal shifts, AI winters are hard to predict. What's more, the intensity of each event can vary widely. Excitement is necessary for emerging technologies to make inroads, but it's clear the only way to prevent a blizzard is calculated silence-and a lot of hard work. As Facebook's former AI director Yann LeCun told _IEEE Spectrum_, "AI has gone through a number of AI winters* because people claimed things they couldn't deliver*."

https://www.popsci.com/ai-winter-artificial-intelligence


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

So this is what it's all about. I kinda started figuring as much in recent days.

The Freemasons, in their push for their New World Order, are trying to push this AI nonsense as a way to condition people's brains to think that there are aliens of some sort, as they push to get people to stop worshipping God.

AI is just short for Aliens.






That's why we all know that SDC's can never work but they just keep pushing them and propagating all this nonsense about them coming even though we know they won't, just like aliens.

Space Force = Space Farce


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Self


jocker12 said:


> Self-driving cars. Faster MRI scans, interpreted by robotic radiologists. Mind readingand x-ray vision. Artificial intelligence promises to permanently alter world. (In some ways, it already has. Just ask this AI scheduling assistant.)
> 
> Artificial intelligence can take many forms. But it's roughly defined as a computer system capable of tackling human tasks like sensory perception and decision-making. *Since its earliest days, AI has fallen prey to cycles of extreme hype-and subsequent collapse.* While recent technological advances may finally put an end to this boom-and-bust pattern, cheekily termed an "AI winter," some scientists remain convinced winter is coming again.
> 
> ...


 SELF DRIVING CARS CAUSE CANCER !

Yet
PEOPLE cause " GLOBAL WARMING".

So
Lets get that Population down to 10% folks.

The Una Bomber was RIGHT !

D.A.R.P.A. GOOGLE KNOWS YOUR EVERY MOVE . . . . .


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Self
> 
> SELF DRIVING CARS CAUSE CANCER !
> 
> ...


They been working on depopulation for a long time now.

It started with cancer and when they created AIDS it got real serious quick.

There's a book called Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus that talks about how they created aids. It's likely Dr Mary Sherman found out what they were going to do with her research so they killed her. It's all in the book.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> They been working on depopulation for a long time now.
> 
> It started with cancer and when they created AIDS it got real serious quick.
> 
> There's a book called Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus that talks about how they created aids. It's likely Dr Mary Sherman found out what they were going to do with her research so they killed her. It's all in the book.


I like a good crazy crackpot conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but.....nobody needed to create cancer to control population much like any other disease or affliction. And the sids virus is now mostly controlled with medications and isn't nearly the threat it was 30 years ago.

Humans don't need no fancy illnesses to keep down populations they have wars for that. And war is and will always be the way to go with population control.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> They been working on depopulation for a long time now.
> 
> It started with cancer and when they created AIDS it got real serious quick.
> 
> There's a book called Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus that talks about how they created aids. It's likely Dr Mary Sherman found out what they were going to do with her research so they killed her. It's all in the book.


why would they create a virus that is incredibly difficult to transmit unless you're having anal sex or using IV drugs?

do they just want to rid the world of junkies and gay men? they don't mind the lesbians though?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> why would they create a virus that is incredibly difficult to transmit unless you're having anal sex or using IV drugs?
> 
> do they just want to rid the world of junkies and gay men? they don't mind the lesbians though?


From what I've heard, they have a cure for HIV, but we'll never see it. You'll note none of the elite families ever have someone dying from AIDS.



Gung-Ho said:


> I like a good crazy crackpot conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but.....nobody needed to create cancer to control population much like any other disease or affliction. And the sids virus is now mostly controlled with medications and isn't nearly the threat it was 30 years ago.
> 
> Humans don't need no fancy illnesses to keep down populations they have wars for that. And war is and will always be the way to go with population control.


It doesn't sound like you actually like a "good crazy crackpot conspiracy theory as much as the next guy" the way you're ranting and raving against the facts and trying to use the same "conspiracy theory" nonsense to try to discredit what people are saying they are doing behind the scenes.

My guess is you're the guy in charge of the "snopes" website, who's only goal is to try to discredit anything that exposes what the elite are up to.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Uh Freddie Mercury died of aids


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> Uh Freddie Mercury died of aids


How do you figure he's in an elite family ?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> How do you figure he's in an elite family ?


Freddy Mercury was ( Is) ELITE TO MUSIC LOVERS !


----------



## the_king_of_$3.18 (Jul 28, 2018)

To stave off another A.I. winter, it's the Pentagon to the rescue:

https://www.technologyreview.com/th...utting-billions-towards-military-ai-research/

Quote:


> DARPA, the US Defense Department's research arm, will spend $2 billion over the next five years on military AI projects.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> From what I've heard, they have a cure for HIV, but we'll never see it. You'll note none of the elite families ever have someone dying from AIDS.
> 
> It doesn't sound like you actually like a "good crazy crackpot conspiracy theory as much as the next guy" the way you're ranting and raving against the facts and trying to use the same "conspiracy theory" nonsense to try to discredit what people are saying they are doing behind the scenes.
> 
> My guess is you're the guy in charge of the "snopes" website, who's only goal is to try to discredit anything that exposes what the elite are up to.


You got me.


----------



## Linux Geek (Jul 1, 2016)

Thanks for the post 

I've been wondering when the "self driving cars have been far safer than humans since 2010" posters on this forum would start cooling their jets. Seems to me like it has happened already - getting useless drivel like "SDC Timeline - Predictions from the Top 11 Global Automakers" now.


----------



## the_king_of_$3.18 (Jul 28, 2018)

Not only are viable SDCs vaporware, the entire "gig economy" is nothing more than hype:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-than-before-uber-existed-official-data-show


> But the gig-economy, which has drawn billions of dollars in venture capital and praise but deep criticism from policymakers, appears not to have caused the massive disruption to the economy that many originally thought.
> 
> A new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the first in 13 years on the topic, says the share of U.S. workers in these types of jobs has shrunk from 7.4 percent in 2005, before Uber and its like existed, to 6.9 percent in 2017.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

the_king_of_$3.18 said:


> To stave off another A.I. winter, it's the Pentagon to the rescue:
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/th...utting-billions-towards-military-ai-research/
> 
> Quote:


Dod interest is understandable, but unfortunately throwing money at a scientific concept doesn't necessary make it scientifically viable.

As I mentioned in previous comments, AI only works in 2 areas - speech recognition and computer vision and for sure the DOD has few applications (especially when it comes to surveillance) to apply those two fields to.

Unfortunately from the scientific point of view, if they cannot get a much lower error rate compared to what they have today, that means AI is stuck, no matter how many trillions your throw at it.

But you still going to enjoy limited Siri and Alexa along with face identifier on the regular photo and video cameras. But that's as far as current AI (intelligence sounds like a joke if you think about it) can go and deliver decent results.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> Dod interest is understandable, but unfortunately throwing money at a scientific concept doesn't necessary make it scientifically viable.
> 
> As I mentioned in previous comments, AI only works in 2 areas - speech recognition and computer vision and for sure the DOD has few applications (especially when it comes to surveillance) to apply those two fields to.
> 
> ...


Siri can bite my furry behind.

Spent 10 minutes arguing with her last night trying to get a flag down's address into my GPS.

Semoran BLVD isn't that hard to say now is it?

Yet i can get her to understand Eckonlockhatchee just fine.


----------

