What part of the article contradicts any of this? Or makes you say they do not understand machine intelligence?
1) There's nothing terrifying about it. 2) The computers aren't "outwitting" anything - they're finding statistical correlations that humans have not found. 3) "Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos" is not the same as "Google researchers can no longer explain exactly how the system has learned to spot certain objects." Considering those are the underpinnings of the article...
>There's nothing terrifying about it. That's pretty subjective, and that was obviously used to add some flavor to the article. Just like the SKYNET bits. >they're finding statistical correlations that humans have not found. That sounds like outwitting to me. >"Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos" is not the same as "Google researchers can no longer explain exactly how the system has learned to spot certain objects." How are those different other than one being a bit more precise? >Considering those are the underpinnings of the article... Unquestionably the most pretentious person I've ever seen on the internet. I don't get it either. Your post would have been cool otherwise, but you had to play up this "they're wrong; I'm right; here's why" bullshit.