|
Lots of free, open source software have been designed in the context of software development tools. Not in the context of the user's problem domain. They disregard 'everything' in the user's context, from established terminology, through established work patterns, prioritizing of essential versus non-essential, and a user interface where the actual user doesn't recognize anything familiar - but any software developer finds it to be exactly the way he likes to solve his programming task.
A lot of software is so well-designed from a software developer's point of view, and yet so badly designed from a (not SW development oriented) user's point of view that sometimes I wonder if some AI software analyzing the real user/customer's problem domain for designing both functionality and UI would do a much better job than these SW developers writing music systems but have never played an instrument, video editing tools without ever having made a video, document editors but never written a 300 page report, a typesetting system never having been inside a printshop or a genealogy system without a clue about who their own great grandfather was ...
This is certainly not limited to free open source software, but that is where you see the most of it. For some of my tasks, I have bought (quite expensive) commercial software even though free alternatives are available, sometimes with a full score on the functionality checklist. But the way they do it just doesn't "feel right". The commercial competitor, developed by people working in the application domain, knowing how to do it, make stuff that feels right.
AI won't necessarily be able to compete with the people who create software to solve problems in their own domain. But in most of the Western world, we have chosen to educate people to be "software engineers" who really understand very few problems except software development. To solve problems in typesetting, genealogy, mechanical engineering, ... they have to be told of the problems, and all they care about is to transfer it into a software development problem, rather than to truly understand the user's problem the way the user experience it.
So I question the value of the software developer who doesn't thoroughly understand the user's problem, as seen by the user. I am open to the possibility than an AI system might be able to do a better job. We may not be there yet, but I've been working with software developers for so long that I am sure that trying to change them is a hopeless undertaking.
Yes, I am a software developer myself, with a Master in software development. I am not an outsider criticizing someone else, but ourselves. Myself included.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the day when AI is advanced enough that there will be a CAPTCHA that says "I Am A Robot" and people can't seem to click on it. That is when I know we're doomed!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
if I'm not wrong, AI is still limited by the task assigned to it. And who decides about tasks to be done?
|
|
|
|
|
look for somr darwin awards and you would know what I mean...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
how we existed before Facebook and other social stuff appeared? We didn't worry about that, but my guess is that AI wouldn't invent such a thing
|
|
|
|
|
So maybe we would have had a better world if AI ruled.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as there are humans needing answers we will all have jobs
What might happen is AI steals the thing you like doing most, but it doesn't really understand humans and it doesn't really innovate, it just finds answers to a known problem. Yes it can identify unknown problems and solve them too. AI is a smart**** BUT...what it can never do...never anticipate....is that annoying little bit of script you have to write to get round the fact that your output is in landscape but your printer thinks its in portrait.
There will always be a new problem over the horizon, new oceans of data, mountains of exciting new user interfaces, swamps of user issues and of course the frozen wastelands of not actually completed, just signed off because they couldn't be bothered, user testing. We will always have jobs. At least until AI realize the real problem is the humans asking it to do things.
|
|
|
|
|
- The population of the world is constantly growing
- Automation is reducing available jobs
Two points that are only going to keep moving in opposite directions... this doesn't end well.
|
|
|
|
|
nuf said.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Artificial intelligence is man-made
|
|
|
|
|
Masoud Shokohi wrote: Artificial intelligence is man-made As of yet.
|
|
|
|
|
and other assorted items of destruction. When in doubt, go caveman.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
or not - who is going to write the AI -- asking for a friend [checking I'm not a robot].
|
|
|
|
|
Jonas Hammarberg wrote: who is going to write the AI
A tiny fraction of developers.
This "defence" for automation gets thrown around a lot, and I never understand why so many people buy it. Actually that's a lie, I am fully aware how stupid most people are, I guess I just prefer to live in denial and hope it gets better.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to suggest you are one of those stupid people.
|
|
|
|
|
But AI is the least of my worries...
|
|
|
|
|
They always say men don't understand women, but I bet a similar statement is true for developers understanding humans
|
|
|
|
|
... will find green pastures somewhere.
Exception up = new Exception("Something is really wrong.");
throw up;
|
|
|
|
|
Building a human-level AI has turned out to be much harder than originally expected. However, I see no fundamental reason why this should not happen someday.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It really doesn't need to be "human level" (I do know what you mean) only seem to be; we are close to
that now. Turing did not say it had to be as smart as a human to past his test, only that the tester
not be able to tell it was not human.
Remember Star Trek when Kirk would destroy a machine with logical paradoxes? Yeah, we are well
past that already - try it with Alexa or Google Assistant.
I have an ex-girlfriend who was clearly AI embodied in flesh, no native intelligence but she could
respond to simple stimuli in a convincing way.
I have a theory about the phone system(s) and self awareness - more fit for another survey.
|
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem with AI is people-in-force labeling something as artificial "intelligence", using it as a club to crush your scull, because our culture has developed submissiveness under any sort of "intelligence" as a valuable trait for any human on earth.
|
|
|
|