>>10849430>f you think a moving car and an stationary car are easy to confuseI've repeatedly pointed out now what AI can get tripped up by is different from what humans can get tripped up by. You're ignoring everything people screw up and focusing on what seems obvious from your own heavily biased human perspective.
What seems obvious is a shit metric for judging AI by. Walking seems obvious and easy to most humans while graduate level complex analysis seems convoluted and difficult to most humans. For AI it's the opposite.
Stop being a retard and try reading next time.
If you want to make a valid case of a fundamental flaw in ANN for example (since that's the one you seem interested in), you can do what Marvin Minsky did decades ago with the perceptron and prove there's a specific class of problems the model is incapable of solving.
This sort of criticism is useful as fuck and in fact is exactly how the ANN model was developed: To solve for the proven inability of the perceptron model to work with problems that aren't linearly separable e.g. the XOR function.
Your "criticism" so far in contrast is "sometimes AI driving applications fail to detect a moving car, and that seems silly to me so it's all fundamentally flawed now QED."
AI will be doing lots of seemingly silly and inane shit in the coming years. And it'll be doing it while accomplishing complicated and high revenue earning tasks, many of which will continue to end up exceeding human level proficiency.
Go read up on all the commentary people like you made about the first artificial chess engines. Lots of the same "HAHAHA How could it be THAT stupid?!?! No way will chess AI ever even figure out how to beat a novice child let alone become competitive!" Or my favorite "Sure, AI can do mindless labor, but it'll never be able to handle a thinking game like chess!"
