Ya...doesn't seem like a future-proof skill to have... computers, cameras, image recognition...all these things make this skill pretty irrelevant.

Select Overlay Item: Bra

Input image recognition template: ( . Y . )

........processing frame 133 of 1089231029

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Video won't always be opaque to the non-human eye. I know that YouTube is experimenting with automatic subtitles using voice recognition. Also Google does a lot of work with image recognition- won't be long.>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, no issue with Firefox here, worked fine and dandy.
It is interesting indeed and am fascinated to watch how the web morphs along with this.
Of course, there will ALWAYS be those saying 'If you can't read it text only, it doesn't belong on the web'.
To which I say 'fuck off sir' (as it's pretty much always a male).
Sure, sites that have important information that requires access should be able to be read via screen readers etc. But why shouldn't there be exciting and interesting things out there to make our life on the web more interesting.
Do these same people believe that books with pictures should not exist? Or popup books?

>> ^flavioribeiro:
My point is that current AI doesn't scale. One can't get the neural network used for image recognition and propose that human level AI is just a matter of using more nodes, because it isn't. And I have yet to see a proposal for useful (i.e., robust and expressive) knowledge representation that don't have exponential requirements (or worse).


The idea of a computer being better than a person at everything is a while off, but that doesn't need to happen to cause social and economic problems. People aren't hired because they are good at everything, they are hired because they are very good at specific things, and that is something that computers will be able to replace. Price/performance will be the main decider of what jobs remain on the human end.

Either way, I don't forsee the number of available jobs keeping up with the number of people, especially as medicine continues to advance. I can't think of a reason not to expect more widespread unemployment even if computers stay exactly where they are today.


The singularity you mention is a very interesting subject in itself, but that is talking about a time well beyond the advances which will further limit the number of jobs that require people.

>> ^Psychologic:
One of Kurzweil's inventions was a computer program that taught itself how to distinguish between pictures of dogs and cats. No one programmed it with any description of either. This is built into a camera that he has demonstrated in public. You can take a picture of the page of a book and it will read it to you as well.

Both fine examples of pattern recognition, and featuring no automated reasoning whatsoever. The current state of AI was well predicted in the 70's and 80's, because most ideas used today were actually conceived back then (or even before). They just weren't implemented because the hardware wasn't fast enough.

My point is that current AI doesn't scale. One can't get the neural network used for image recognition and propose that human level AI is just a matter of using more nodes, because it isn't. And I have yet to see a proposal for useful (i.e., robust and expressive) knowledge representation that don't have exponential requirements (or worse).

There has always been a huge amount of handwaving in the AI scene. The bleeding edge of today's AI is basically an improvement of what began in the 70's (for example, regarding detailed specialist systems for medical diagnostics, or theorem provers for assisting professional mathematicians). The human-level part remains very unclear, and academic researchers are very conscious of how little is known. However, this doesn't stop "futurists" from making wild predictions about the singularity and what not.

Damn fine job! I've seen somebody mod a controller to do this (electronically), but it required the note sequence beforehand. Looks like these guys are using some sort of image recognition, and computer vision just hasn't been perfected yet.

Red Hammer... pictured it right quick, "hammer. red handle." heh, I even looked back to see if it flashed something, but hey, at least I got the all the math right. And in my defense, my hammer had a metal head, which isn't really red. hehe.

But it's true, if you choose to suspect you're being fooled or tested or something, you can easily force yourself to come up with something unusual, especially if you know it is a "test of `special` creativity" before hand. I think it's more of a test of how willing you are to embrace and neurological experiment than it is a test of creativity.

My bet is than that a person would access either:
-a word-image recognition center to associate the first tool that comes to mind, then the first color that could be imagined on that tool... not necessarily a red hammer, but that's kinda a common choice.
or
-a creative center we often call upon for creative story telling/writing and lying (which is about the same). The person might be thinking, this is a trick, quick, come up with something original, even if it would not otherwise be the first thing to come to mind.

Wild.

Same goes for ink-blots. I could tell you I see flowers when I really see dead bodies, but in the end, the fact that I was obviously lying says as much about me as if I were to have told the truth.

(I do realize people were joking. lol. I just thought this was a cool neurological experiment and figured I'd delve into wild conjecture)