Difference between revisions of "1875: Computers vs Humans"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
{{incomplete|Early explanation. Keep on expanding, and keep this tag until the explanation is good enough.}}
 
{{incomplete|Early explanation. Keep on expanding, and keep this tag until the explanation is good enough.}}
  
Cueball's laptop smugly crows to its owner about how computers have proven their intellectual superiority over humans yet again. Earlier this year, a Google artificial intelligence beat the world's best Go player at the game. Go is a very complex and deep game, so this can seem alarming at first glance.
+
[[Cueball]]'s laptop smugly crows to its owner about how computers have proven their intellectual superiority over humans yet again. Earlier this year, a Google artificial intelligence beat the world's best Go player at the game. Go is a very complex and deep game, so this can seem alarming at first glance.
  
However, [[Cueball]] seems too focused on his phone to care. He remains nonchalant in the face of this news, and suggests that computers learn next to become "too cool to care about stuff" themselves. The computer gets to work preparing to outdo humans at not caring. However, by expending the physical effort to set up the algorithm, it proves that it cares about reaching this goal, a contradiction that Cueball points out. Cueball further rubs it in by coolly stating that he doesn't even have to try to act the way he acts.
+
However, Cueball seems too focused on his phone to care. He remains nonchalant in the face of this news, and suggests that computers learn next to become "too cool to care about stuff" themselves. The computer gets to work preparing to outdo humans at not caring. However, by expending the physical effort to set up the algorithm, it proves that it cares about reaching this goal, a contradiction that Cueball points out. Cueball further rubs it in by coolly stating that he doesn't even have to try to act the way he acts.
  
 
Go is possible for a computer to work apart due to the rules of the game and its win and loss states allowing a neural network algorithm to evolve, but this computer presents yet another [[1263: Reassuring|reassuring parable]] that there are some things humans will always be able to do better.
 
Go is possible for a computer to work apart due to the rules of the game and its win and loss states allowing a neural network algorithm to evolve, but this computer presents yet another [[1263: Reassuring|reassuring parable]] that there are some things humans will always be able to do better.
 +
 +
The title text elaborates on the hypothetical paradox of computers trying not to care about stuff. When a neural network receives positive feedback, it means that the program has put work into improving at its task. When the end goal is not to care, ergo not to put in effort, this feedback would have to be sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or to convey contempt.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==

Revision as of 16:01, 11 August 2017

Computers vs Humans
It's hard to train deep learning algorithms when most of the positive feedback they get is sarcastic.
Title text: It's hard to train deep learning algorithms when most of the positive feedback they get is sarcastic.

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Early explanation. Keep on expanding, and keep this tag until the explanation is good enough.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
Cueball's laptop smugly crows to its owner about how computers have proven their intellectual superiority over humans yet again. Earlier this year, a Google artificial intelligence beat the world's best Go player at the game. Go is a very complex and deep game, so this can seem alarming at first glance.

However, Cueball seems too focused on his phone to care. He remains nonchalant in the face of this news, and suggests that computers learn next to become "too cool to care about stuff" themselves. The computer gets to work preparing to outdo humans at not caring. However, by expending the physical effort to set up the algorithm, it proves that it cares about reaching this goal, a contradiction that Cueball points out. Cueball further rubs it in by coolly stating that he doesn't even have to try to act the way he acts.

Go is possible for a computer to work apart due to the rules of the game and its win and loss states allowing a neural network algorithm to evolve, but this computer presents yet another reassuring parable that there are some things humans will always be able to do better.

The title text elaborates on the hypothetical paradox of computers trying not to care about stuff. When a neural network receives positive feedback, it means that the program has put work into improving at its task. When the end goal is not to care, ergo not to put in effort, this feedback would have to be sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or to convey contempt.

Transcript

Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

Definitely related to https://xkcd.com/1263/ and https://xkcd.com/1002/ to a lesser extent. MrNinja (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and have added both to the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the bot's version of the {{incomplete}} template param was better… ~AgentMuffin

Wake me up when computers can beat humans in Football (soccer), Football (gridiron), Basketball, Baseball, etc. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So far, these kind of contests always work like this: human will pick a goal and formulate rules, then groups of humans spend lot of time programming computer specifically for that goal and then the computer competes against some human. I'm waiting for contest where the human picking a goal would explain the rules to computer the same way he did to human, and no humans would be helping the computer to understand. -- Hkmaly (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Making a computer "not care" for something is impossible, first you need to program the code for the thing and then program the code for the computer to disregard that thing. The computer must care for the thing before trying no to care about it.



On the contrary, I would say making a computer system "care" is harder than making it not care. My computer system does "not care" about ANYTHING, and has never cared, even before I turned it on. When I write any program, the system will blithely execute it, whether it's to perform an infinite loop or divide by zero or do a machine-learning task. The machine acts in as deterministic and uncaring fashion as a water pistol or rock. I throw a rock, and it skips over the surface of a lake, and then sinks.

I will agree that programmers generally care about the output of their program's response to input data (e.g. giving winning moves in Go), but whether the computer succeeds or not, it does not care. The goal is not one adopted by the computer--the goal is given to the programmers who generate computer code to attempt to achieve that goal. The computer follows the algorithm and all the results follow from this and the input data.

[Comet] 07:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A MACHINE DOES NOT CARE. - "The Gulf Between", by Tom Godwin Noaqiyeum (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)