[HN Gopher] Homemade AI Drone Software Finds People When Search ...
___________________________________________________________________
Homemade AI Drone Software Finds People When Search and Rescue
Teams Can't
Author : sohkamyung
Score : 133 points
Date : 2024-10-07 10:12 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| isx726552 wrote:
| Put weapons on it (as already seen in current conflicts) and it
| becomes a seek-and-assassinate tool. Drones are cheap enough it
| could even be done _en masse_. It is a scary future, and it's not
| far away at all.
| rvnx wrote:
| It exists in Estonia ("thanks" to Googley Eric Schmidt!), it's
| a company that had codename White Stork.
| avibhu wrote:
| Ironic name.
| hiddencost wrote:
| National bird of Ukraine
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| It looks like they may have changed their name. White Stork
| is the name of a charity that provides first aid kits and
| other aid in Ukraine.
|
| https://whitestork.us/
|
| https://x.com/WilliamMcNulty/status/1798855191858712929
| jvanderbot wrote:
| S&R has always been a front for weaponized robotics, IMHO.
|
| The last DARPA grand challenge (Subterrainean) had automated
| drone networks that could find and identify humans in caves and
| tunnels. They were at least up front about the military
| challenges in these environments.
| (https://www.darpa.mil/program/darpa-subterranean-challenge),
| but the nod at civilian first-responders doesn't seem fair.
| Honestly, is cave-in such a big civilian problem that we need
| to prioritize it as a talking point at all levels?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's generally hard to say what's a "front" for what, unless
| you mean "what can you get someone to grant you research
| money for when you really expect to parlay the learnings into
| another topic."
|
| Everything about the rocketry needed to get to orbit started
| from warfare purposes, for example. And ARPANET was a foray
| into how to build a disruption-resistant network for military
| purposes.
|
| Science and knowledge are a bit of a soup.
| cpgxiii wrote:
| > Honestly, is cave-in such a big civilian problem that we
| need to prioritize it as a talking point at all levels?
|
| Considering (1) the number of people who are employed in
| mining occupations, (2) the frequency of serious accidents in
| mines, yes. Particularly in developed countries, societies
| expect that great lengths will be gone to rescue or recover
| the victims, and mine rescue is incredibly dangerous work.
|
| (1) BLS says ~200K in the US in 2024, although only a
| minority of them work underground.
|
| (2) BLS says "underground mining machine operators" is the
| 9th deadliest job in the US, and that is with a large and
| well-equipped mine rescue system (MSRA says 250 teams across
| the country).
| looofooo0 wrote:
| Guess what happens in Ukraine.
| morkalork wrote:
| The future is already here - it's just not very evenly
| distributed
| ColinWright wrote:
| https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Gibson
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I've been saying that any armistace on drones won't come until
| the US starts being hit by drone warfare. Especially by a
| foreign militia or nation state
| colechristensen wrote:
| What do you think UFOs are?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| they need to cause collateral damage, not busy work for
| FOIA respondents in Ohio
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| The US is the biggest user of drones. What are you talking
| about?
| hooverd wrote:
| US civilians aren't subjected to them though.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Precisely. It's about terror. The US having the political
| capital it does (among other things, being a Security
| Council member in the UN), Americans won't push their
| government to curtail drone use until and unless they're
| on the receiving end of asymmetric warfare attacks
| perpetrated with low-cost disposables carrying lethal
| payloads.
|
| (Certainly not advocating for this, but noting that it's
| the most likely trigger to get the ball rolling on
| regulation of drones in military operation where very
| little currently exists).
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| This system would not work against camouflage.
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| I mean it would you just have to put different optics on it
| thermal, near infrared and normal, and have three different
| detection neural nets
| lupusreal wrote:
| A read a comment here a while ago about "search and rescue"
| being a euphemism for military applications and that's the
| first thing I thought of when I saw this story.
| inexcf wrote:
| Everyone is thinking the same thing reading that headline. In a
| stroke of comedic genius the link still says "bodies" instead of
| "people".
| scintill76 wrote:
| I'm amazed this problem isn't fixed in every CMS, or at least
| publishing team processes, by now (the problem is that the link
| slug is generated from the first title and doesn't update when
| the title is updated.)
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I'm not a web developer at all, but I thought keeping the URL
| was intentional for SEO reasons.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| It's basically the FREE POINT square on the bingo card at this
| point. When someone builds a cool robot that they don't know what
| to do with, it's inevitably for SAR. I've worked on a couple of
| them myself.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Free business ideas, because I want this to exist:
|
| Use drones with IR cameras:
|
| * Find deer after they're shot. Right now you need to hire a
| blood hound and it takes hours
|
| * Do wildlife surveys for conservation and management
| departments
|
| * Pest management for farmers
| arkh wrote:
| Launch from car while stuck in some random traffic jam: learn
| the cause of the jam and how long it is.
| tashi wrote:
| A good idea unless it becomes popular.
|
| I'm picturing bumper-to-bumper traffic on a highway with a
| cloud of drones overhead. Each person in their individual
| car using their individual drone to all report back the
| same thing: that everything is moving slowly because there
| are just too many cars on the road right now. With luck,
| the drones only crash into each other every once in a
| while, just like the cars below.
| rnewme wrote:
| Just get cb radio
| krisoft wrote:
| Suprisingly your first idea is illegal in some states. For
| example it is illegal in Texas.
|
| https://www.skysenderos.com/blogs/thermal-drone-deer-
| recover...
| hluska wrote:
| If you google "thermal drone for hunting" you will find some
| YouTube videos about people solving the first problem.
|
| Pest management is a heck of a good idea. The province of
| Alberta is officially rat free - if Alberta doesn't have
| something like this I bet they would be interested.
| Especially if it could do double duty for wildlife surveys.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| > * Find deer after they're shot. Right now you need to hire
| a blood hound and it takes hours
|
| They tried this exact thing with the kentucky freeway shooter
| using both helicopter based FLIR system and IR camera
| equipped drones and failed. Eventually the dudes body was
| found by a group of ... as far as i can tell, wilderness
| youtubers working with a police search party.
|
| Even the dogs didn't find him.
| drhagen wrote:
| It even has an xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2128/
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| At this point, xkcd must be like Simpsons. They already did
| everything.
| amelius wrote:
| I'm starting to suspect that google is behind xkcd, i.e.
| running some generative AI script behind the scenes
| whenever someone looks for a comic.
| y-curious wrote:
| I'm mind-blown at how relevant that is here
| catskul2 wrote:
| > The weather was unusually mild for the season, and Kelly
| thought he might even have time to "bag" a second Munro,
|
| I really hate when people use very uncommon terms without
| defining them. (or sometimes even people's names)
|
| It's not that I couldn't make a guess based on context, but it's
| distracting, and I feel like my eyes must have skipped over
| something and I often keep going back over the text to see what I
| must have missed reading.
|
| I imagine this is sometimes caused by sloppy editing, especially
| when they refer to a last name of a person who has yet to be
| introduced in the article, but I think sometimes it's a
| deliberate choice and I object.
| arrowleaf wrote:
| Peak bagging is a very common term in the outdoor sports world.
| This complaint is like a non-tech person reading a Wired
| article that mentions JSON and complaining that there's no
| explainer.
| lukeinator42 wrote:
| It's honestly even closer to a non-tech person complaining
| about the word upload being used without an explainer.
| infecto wrote:
| Which is I assume an extension from the usage in hunting to
| "bag" an animal which is to catch/kill.
| closewith wrote:
| No, both stem from literarily and figuratively putting
| things in a bag. You can bag anything, a kiss, an award,
| item, person, accomplishment, etc.
| infecto wrote:
| Do you have any source for your disagreement. Last time I
| checked the phrasing as it applies to a game bag goes
| quite far back which would hint at its usage in later
| examples that you provided.
|
| "Many figurative senses, such as the verb meaning "to
| kill game" (1814) and its colloquial extension to "catch,
| seize, steal" (1818) are from the notion of the game bag
| (late 15c.) into which the product of the hunt was
| placed. This also probably explains modern slang in the
| bag "assured, certain" (1922, American English). To be
| left holding the bag (and presumably nothing else),
| "cheated, swindled" is attested by 1793."
| https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=bag
| aspenmayer wrote:
| You're both right in a way, in that you're able to reason
| about the word from usage and context but it's a separate
| meaning entirely, #5 below
|
| From Oxford Dictionary of English
|
| verb (bags, bagging, bagged) [with object]
|
| 1 put (something) in a bag: customers bagged their own
| groceries | we bagged up the apples | once you've raked
| the leaves, bag them up right away so that they don't get
| wet.
|
| 2 succeed in killing or catching (an animal): Mike bagged
| nineteen cod. * succeed in securing (something): we've
| bagged three awards for excellence | get there early to
| bag a seat in the front row.
|
| 3 [no object] (of clothes, especially trousers) form
| loose bulges due to wear: these trousers never bag at the
| knee.
|
| 4 North American English informal fit (a patient) with an
| oxygen mask or other respiratory aid.
|
| 5 (bags or bags I) British English informal a child's
| expression used to make a claim to something: bags his
| jacket.
|
| 6 North American English informal abandon or give up on:
| she ought to just bag this marriage and get on with her
| life.
|
| 7 informal, mainly Australian and New Zealand English
| criticize: the fans should be backing him not bagging
| him.
| closewith wrote:
| Number 5, bagsying, is subtly different. It's a claim to
| something, like dibs in the US.
|
| No, both the GP and I are referring to number two,
| gaining something and literally or figuratively putting
| it in a bag. It applies equally to game and SaaS revenue
| and everything in between.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I listed that definition also, to differentiate it from
| the one regarding the mountains.
| infecto wrote:
| Honest question, what was the most confusing part for you? I am
| guessing bag as that one might be more obscure but even then in
| the context I think its guessable but maybe a struggle for non-
| native english speakers. Munro seems difficult but since your
| selective quote makes it worse imo.
|
| "...a second Munro, as the Scottish mountains above 3,000 feet
| are known."
|
| The opening paragraph describes him climbing/hiking a mountain
| in Scotland. "His plan was to climb Creise, a 1,100-meter-high
| peak overlooking Glen Etive...". Which then leads into him
| trying to "bag" a second one.
|
| Just a counterpoint that it does not feel like sloppy editing
| at all. I struggle to see what would be difficult here for
| native speakers.
| more_corn wrote:
| Who bags a mountain? A tortured metaphor if I've ever heard
| one. And 90% of English speakers don't know what a Munro is.
| I've been to Scotland and never heard the word.
| infecto wrote:
| > Who bags a mountain? A tortured metaphor if I've ever
| heard one. And 90% of English speakers don't know what a
| Munro is. I've been to Scotland and never heard the word.
|
| Peak bagging is common in that community but "to bag"
| something is quite common in native english or at least
| enough so that its in the Oxford dictionary. Hard for me to
| see a native speaker struggle with this, the connection can
| be made just from the prior paragraph.
|
| They define what a Munro is in the same sentence. Are you
| here to just argue? I had to go back and add your post as a
| quote as I am not sure how someone can miss the literal
| definition within the sentence. "Munro, as the Scottish
| mountains above 3,000 feet are known". Is that difficult
| for you to read and understand?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| I hike but I'm not a peak bagger. But the first time I
| encountered the term I found it completely obvious what it
| meant.
|
| Having only spent a few days of my life in Scotland I
| didn't know "Munro" but the article defined it.
| hluska wrote:
| They introduce Charlie Kelly the previous paragraph, explain
| what a Munro is right after that and use quotes around "bag".
| What else could you expect? "Bag" is extremely common in many
| industries and they defined both other different terms.
|
| You just ripped on an editor for absolutely no reason.
| daemonologist wrote:
| The word to "bag" may be more _common_ in this context but it
| 's not exclusive to it nor very uncommon, at least in North
| America. You might say "they bagged a record in the 4x400m
| relay" or "we bagged the contract" or another form like "that
| objective is in the bag." I think it's etymologically derived
| from hunting (literally putting game in a bag) but at this
| point it's just a word.
| pgraf wrote:
| I don't see any hint of AI being used here, but rather a
| handcrafted computer vision algorithm. Can anyone more involved
| in the matter elaborate if there was an actual AI model used?
| yifanl wrote:
| We don't have a formal classification of which technologies can
| be considered "AI", but computer vision would feel like a valid
| entrant to me.
| nostrademons wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
| keybored wrote:
| I thought that AGI covered that. AGI to my mind doesn't
| have to surpass human thinking. It just has to be
| categorically the same as it (it can be less powerful, or
| more). It has to be general. A chess machine in a box which
| can't do anything else is not general.[1]
|
| I've always been fine with calling things AI even though
| they are all jumbles of stats nonsense that wouldn't be
| able to put their own pants on. _Does a submarine swim?_
| No, but that's just the metaphor that the most vocal
| adherents are wedded to (at the hips). The metaphor doesn't
| harm me. And to argue against it is like Chomsky trying to
| tell programming language designers that programming
| languages being _languages_ is just a metaphor.
|
| [1] EDIT: In other words it can be on the level of a crow.
| Or a dog. Just something general. Something that has some
| animalistic-like intelligence.
| nostrademons wrote:
| I think the point of the Wikipedia article is that _human
| categories are flexible, and they get redefined to suit
| human ego needs_ regardless of what 's happening in the
| objective outside world.
|
| Say that you have a closed system that largely operates
| without human intervention - for example, the current ad
| fraud mess where you have bots pretending to be humans
| that don't actually exist to inflate ad counts, all of
| which gets ranked higher by the ML ad models because it
| inflates their engagement numbers, but it's all to sell
| products that don't really work anyway so that the
| company can post better revenue numbers to Wall Street
| and unload the shares on prop trading bots and index
| funds that are all investing algorithmically anyway. On
| some level, this is a form of "intelligence" even though
| it doesn't put pants on. For that matter, many human
| societies don't put pants on, nor do my not-quite-
| socialized preschool kids. It's only _the weight of our
| collective upbringing_ , coupled with a desire to feel
| intelligent, that leads us to equate putting pants on
| with intelligence. Plenty of people don't put pants on
| and consider themselves intelligent as well. And the
| complexity of what computers actually _do_ do is often
| well beyond the complexity of what humans do.
|
| I often like to flip the concept of "artificial
| intelligence" on its head and instead think about
| "natural stupidity". Sure, the hot AI technologies of the
| moment are basically just massive matrix computations
| that statistically predict what's likely to come next
| given all the training data they've seen before. Humans
| are also basically just massive neural networks that
| respond to stimulus and reward given all the training
| data they've seen before. You can make very useful
| predictions about, say, what is going to get a human to
| click on a link or open their wallet using these AI
| technologies. And since we too are relatively predictable
| human machines that are focused on material wealth and
| having enough money to get others to satisfy our
| emotions, this is a very useful asset to have.
| keybored wrote:
| > I think the point of the Wikipedia article is that
| human categories are flexible, and they get redefined to
| suit human ego needs regardless of what's happening in
| the objective outside world.
|
| I know what the point is. Of course computer scientists
| that make AI (whatever that means) want to be known for
| making Intelligence. And they get cross when the marvel
| of yesterday becomes a humdrum utility.
|
| As you can see this part cuts both ways:
|
| > > and they get redefined to suit human ego needs
|
| > Say that you have a closed system that largely operates
| without human intervention - for example, the current ad
| fraud mess where you have bots pretending to be humans
| that don't actually exist to inflate ad counts, all of
| which gets ranked higher by the ML ad models because it
| inflates their engagement numbers, but it's all to sell
| products that don't really work anyway so that the
| company can post better revenue numbers to Wall Street
| and unload the shares on prop trading bots and index
| funds that are all investing algorithmically anyway. On
| some level, this is a form of "intelligence" even though
| it doesn't put pants on. For that matter, many human
| societies don't put pants on, nor do my not-quite-
| socialized preschool kids. It's only the weight of our
| collective upbringing, coupled with a desire to feel
| intelligent, that leads us to equate putting pants on
| with intelligence. Plenty of people don't put pants on
| and consider themselves intelligent as well. And the
| complexity of what computers actually do do is often well
| beyond the complexity of what humans do.
|
| I bet your AI of choice could write a thesis on how
| putting pants on is a stupid social construct. Yet if it
| is _incapable of doing it_ it would just be a bunch of
| hot air.
|
| > I often like to flip the concept of "artificial
| intelligence" on its head and instead think about
| "natural stupidity".
|
| This philosophy tends to go with the territory.
|
| > Sure, the hot AI technologies of the moment are
| basically just massive matrix computations that
| statistically predict what's likely to come next given
| all the training data they've seen before. Humans are
| also basically just massive neural networks that respond
| to stimulus and reward given all the training data
| they've seen before.
|
| "Basically" doing some heavy lifting here.
|
| This is obviously false. We would have gone extinct
| pretty much immediately if we had to tediously train
| ourselves from scratch. We have instincts as well.
|
| "But that's just built-in training." Okay, now we're back
| to it not basically being stimulus-responses to training
| data they've seen before. So what's the point? When it's
| not basically just that.
|
| > You can make very useful predictions about, say, what
| is going to get a human to click on a link or open their
| wallet using these AI technologies. And since we too are
| relatively predictable human machines that are focused on
| material wealth and having enough money to get others to
| satisfy our emotions, this is a very useful asset to
| have.
|
| Yes. Humans have wants and needs and act in ways
| consistent with cause and effect. E.g. as the clueless
| "consumer subject" against billions of dollars of
| marketing money and AI owned by those same marketing
| departments.
|
| Amazingly: Humans are what you allow them to be.
|
| We could treat all humans according to Skinner Box
| theory. We could treat them as if Skinner's stimulus-
| response theories are correct and only allow them to act
| inside that framework. That would (again, amazingly)
| confirm that Skinner was right all along.
|
| Any organism can express itself maximally only in a
| maximally free setting. A free dog is a dog; a chained
| human might only be a dog.
|
| The only difference is that humans have words that they
| can express through their mouthholes about what kind of
| future they want. If they want to be humans (i.e. human
| ego needs, sigh) or if they want to be the natural
| stupidity subjects of the artificial intelligence.
|
| Or they don't care because they don't think AI will ever
| be able to put its pants on.
| mportela wrote:
| I had heard that quote many times but never know it's
| called "AI effect". Thanks!
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Maybe? I am currently going through 'artificial intelligence
| modern approach' by Russel&Norvig and from historical
| perspective alone, it seems vision would qualify.
|
| It is just that the language drifted a little the way it did
| with cyber meaning something else to post 90s kids. So now AI
| seems to be mostly associated with llms, but not that long
| ago, AI seemed to almost include just use to of an algorithm.
|
| I am not an expert in the field at all. I am just looking at
| stuff for personal growth.
| datameta wrote:
| Computer vision totally qualifies as AI as it can grant an
| agent artificially intelligent behavior.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Based on what is said in the article, it seems like a VERY
| simple algorithm. It clusters the pixels in the image by
| color and reports any small blobs of unusual color. That's
| not AI by any of the stupid definitions we've come up with
| recently.
| morkalork wrote:
| Clustering and outlier detection is not AI?
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| I mean, if something as traditional as simple clustering
| is AI, then so is linear regression and Excel Sheets have
| been doing AI/ML for the past 2 decades.
|
| At some point we just have to stop with the breathless
| hype. I'm sure labelling it as AI gets more clicks and
| exposure so I know exactly why they do it. Still, it's
| annoying.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| You're only saying this because we're in a hype cycle.
| Circa 2018, there was no problem at all with calling this
| AI: in fact, it was normal.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Back then we still called things image classifiers or
| machine learning, and when you said AI most people
| probably had an image of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Cortana
| flash in their mind.
| morkalork wrote:
| Yes! AI is any sort of machine intelligence and its been
| around for more than 2 decades, the 80s even had its own
| "AI winter" after all.
| Gud wrote:
| There is no intelligence here, only pattern matching.
| kvakerok wrote:
| The same could be said about many people.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| At least until recently any introductory machine learning
| course would teach linear regression and clustering, the
| latter as an example of unsupervised learning.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| To me the fundamental difference is that AI is trained,
| algorithms are not. There's not training here, it's a
| simple frequency count looking for outliers. While it's
| an approach a human would take the human is doing it in a
| very different fashion. And the human is much more
| sensitive to form, this is much more sensitive to color.
|
| They are definitely right that our (I am a hiker) gear
| tends to stand out against nature. Not only is it
| generally in colors that do not appear in any volume in
| nature, but almost nothing in the plant and mineral
| kingdoms is of uniform color. A blob of uniform color is
| in all probability either a monochromatic animal (the
| sheep their system detects) or man made.
|
| What surprises me about this is that it hasn't been tried
| before.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| You are confusing AI and Machine Learning, the latter
| being a subset of the former.
| kxrm wrote:
| This really gets at one of my issues with the term "AI".
| There is a very scientific, textbook definition of what
| Artificial Intelligence is however, this term carries
| baggage from sci-fi.
|
| Using a term like "AI" to describe this is like using a
| term "Food" to describe pickles. Poor analogy but "AI" is
| just so vast that most lay readers or those not familiar
| with this phrase in regular computer science discussions
| aren't grounded in the consequence.
|
| I feel that we as an industry need to do better and use
| terms more responsibly and know our audience. There is a
| big difference between a clustering algorithm that
| detects pixels and flags them and a conscious, self-aware
| system. However both of those things are "AI" and both
| have very different consequences.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| This is the list of discussion topics from the Dartmouth
| Workshop on Artificial Intelligence (1955) where the term
| was first introduced: The following are
| some aspects of the artificial intelligence problem:
| 1 Automatic Computers If a machine can do a
| job, then an automatic calculator can be programmed to
| simulate the machine. The speeds and memory capacities of
| present computers may be insufficient to simulate many of
| the higher functions of the human brain, but the major
| obstacle is not lack of machine capacity, but our
| inability to write programs taking full advantage of what
| we have. 2. How Can a Computer be Programmed
| to Use a Language It may be speculated that a
| large part of human thought consists of manipulating
| words according to rules of reasoning and rules of
| conjecture. From this point of view, forming a
| generalization consists of admitting a new word and some
| rules whereby sentences containing it imply and are
| implied by others. This idea has never been very
| precisely formulated nor have examples been worked out.
| 3. Neuron Nets How can a set of (hypothetical)
| neurons be arranged so as to form concepts. Considerable
| theoretical and experimental work has been done on this
| problem by Uttley, Rashevsky and his group, Farley and
| Clark, Pitts and McCulloch, Minsky, Rochester and
| Holland, and others. Partial results have been obtained
| but the problem needs more theoretical work.
| 4. Theory of the Size of a Calculation If we
| are given a well-defined problem (one for which it is
| possible to test mechanically whether or not a proposed
| answer is a valid answer) one way of solving it is to try
| all possible answers in order. This method is
| inefficient, and to exclude it one must have some
| criterion for efficiency of calculation. Some
| consideration will show that to get a measure of the
| efficiency of a calculation it is necessary to have on
| hand a method of measuring the complexity of calculating
| devices which in turn can be done if one has a theory of
| the complexity of functions. Some partial results on this
| problem have been obtained by Shannon, and also by
| McCarthy. 5. Self-lmprovement
| Probably a truly intelligent machine will carry out
| activities which may best be described as self-
| improvement. Some schemes for doing this have been
| proposed and are worth further study. It seems likely
| that this question can be studied abstractly as well.
| 6. Abstractions A number of types of
| ``abstraction'' can be distinctly defined and several
| others less distinctly. A direct attempt to classify
| these and to describe machine methods of forming
| abstractions from sensory and other data would seem
| worthwhile. 7. Randomness and Creativity
| A fairly attractive and yet clearly incomplete conjecture
| is that the difference between creative thinking and
| unimaginative competent thinking lies in the injection of
| a some randomness. The randomness must be guided by
| intuition to be efficient. In other words, the educated
| guess or the hunch include controlled randomness in
| otherwise orderly thinking.
|
| From:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20070826230310/http://www-
| formal...
|
| So, no, the fundamental difference is not that "AI is
| trained, algorithms are not". Some hand-crafted
| algorithms fall under the purview of AI research. A
| modern example is graph-search algorithms like MCTS or
| A*.
| IshKebab wrote:
| No, even before the current AI era classical computer vision
| was not considered to be "AI"... because it isn't. That's
| just a fact.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Computer vision is a field of AI. But this is just an
| algorithm without any sort of learning or training process.
| sangnoir wrote:
| ML =/= AI.
|
| Machine learning was widely considered to be a subset of
| AI, until it got a big resurgence almost 2 decades ago. Now
| some people use the terms interchangeably.
| godelski wrote:
| I thought AI meant "ML" + marketing.
|
| I joke, but not. I'm a researcher and AI has been a pretty
| ambiguous term for years, mostly because intelligence is
| still not well defined. Unfortunately I think it's becoming
| less well defined in the last few years (while prior to that
| was getting better defined) via the (Fox) Mulder Effect.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I think at one time, a mechanical calculator would have been
| considered AI
| moffkalast wrote:
| Deep learning is just a subset of AI which has officially been
| a thing since 1956. A chess algorithm is smarter than any human
| yet it's just classical search.
| ithkuil wrote:
| It's just that the "AI" word is no longer taboo
| snapcaster wrote:
| I'm so tired of this argument. AI is a blurry term as it's used
| in the world. Who the fuck cares if this is "officially AI" or
| not? Can we just stop having this discussion?
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| It's a long article and I'm on mobile. Do they link the code or
| not?
| schiffern wrote:
| "MRMap is free for use by Mountain Rescue Teams. While being
| free it is NOT open source."
| http://www.mrmap.org.uk/index.php/introduction
|
| Relevant changelogs are 6.0a and 6.0b.
| http://mrmap.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=24
| vzaliva wrote:
| Satellite SOS, recently introduced in iPhone and Google Pixel
| phones, will help a lot with lost hiker cases. However, drone-
| based search will still be useful in case the hiker broke the
| phone or is too incapacitated to use it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-07 23:00 UTC)