Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

Page 88 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AI won't replace engineers, but will simplify the tasks to the point where instead of a full team of them, you just need 1 or 2 to tweak and supervise the AI doing the work.

There's always going to be a human element in everything, because laws make it so that no AI in the foreseeable future can cope with the stupidness of regulations and their changes.

And I agree with gamerk on the specialized cores argument. It makes little sense to add dedicated cores to stuff when they come with an implicit expiration date. Moreover, for security things, you'll be tied to upgrade cycles and, more importantly, security holes. More pragmatically, for dedicated hardware you also need specialized software that can use that effectively. When you write software for a general purpose CPU, it's easy to get it to market fast, but when you need to support specific stuff, it becomes a big PITA.

Cheers!
 

Eximo

Titan
Herald
AI can also be truly stupid when you give it bad or biased data. Sometimes it will pick out the criteria that is least important and blow it out of proportion. I recall one study that was quite funny. They tasked AI with filtering a pile of resumes down to candidates worth interviewing. End result was that it learned to determine the difference between male and female applicants by their use of language and began rejecting all female applicants. It was completely ignoring qualifications and experience because the data of successful retention and hiring heavily favored men. A good follow up study would have been to run it through a female dominated profession and see how it did there.

I remember reading about AI designed electronics many years ago, iterative evolution design or something like that. Don't know if that ever became a thing. It was essentially waveform in, waveform out, and it would try adding components and see if if got farther or closer to the desired outcome, and do this millions of times. It made truly impressive designs, but often used hundreds more components then a standard design.
 

goldstone77

Honorable
Aug 22, 2012
2,247
9
11,965
85
I'm a mechanical engineer- the 'AI can design it better' is a huge sales pitch in the CAD industry at the moment. The problem though, is that as you say you have to give the AI the rules to follow- which is usually based on an FEA study of a part. In my experience all the AI does is remove every scrap of material it can whilst still meeting the load case given the the FEA study- however that results in a part that has no capacity to withstand unexpected forces (e.g. side loading, shock loading etc). The parts are also totally impossible to manufacture save for 3D printing (another buzz term that is being held up as the answer to everything yet in reality is only suited to very limited production volume and parts produced in this way have a lot of limitations).
There are positives and negatives, but it's only going to improve over time. Everything is going to become automated at some point, because that is the direction everything is heading. On a side note, what is going to happen when unemployment starts to skyrocket because of automation?
 
I'm a mechanical engineer- the 'AI can design it better' is a huge sales pitch in the CAD industry at the moment. The problem though, is that as you say you have to give the AI the rules to follow- which is usually based on an FEA study of a part. In my experience all the AI does is remove every scrap of material it can whilst still meeting the load case given the the FEA study- however that results in a part that has no capacity to withstand unexpected forces (e.g. side loading, shock loading etc). The parts are also totally impossible to manufacture save for 3D printing (another buzz term that is being held up as the answer to everything yet in reality is only suited to very limited production volume and parts produced in this way have a lot of limitations).
In a case like this, you could argue the problem is the rules given to the AI aren't stringent enough.
 
There are positives and negatives, but it's only going to improve over time. Everything is going to become automated at some point, because that is the direction everything is heading. On a side note, what is going to happen when unemployment starts to skyrocket because of automation?
I honestly believe that's where we are heading, and when that happens is going to be defined by how quickly the AI field advances. I do feel jobs are going to be at a premium in 20 years or so; we can only destroy so many fields before growth in other industries can't pick up the slack.

At the end of the day, only us Software Engineers are truly safe. :D
 

cdrkf

Honorable
In a case like this, you could argue the problem is the rules given to the AI aren't stringent enough.
My point is that what is being hailed as "AI" is just a dumb optimisation tool. It isn't intelligent- it's function is fixed.

I don't think there's much risk to jobs in the design and engineering fields any time soon. The tools people are talking about are just that - tools that can allow the task to be done better (when used in the correct context) and arguably reduce time by automating the donkey work. They aren't actually taking over the "thinking" part though.

Show me an AI system that can plan out a real design (involving more than a single component), based on nothing more than a brief and then I'll start to worry... I've yet to see anything that can actually do that.
 
My point is that what is being hailed as "AI" is just a dumb optimisation tool. It isn't intelligent- it's function is fixed.

I don't think there's much risk to jobs in the design and engineering fields any time soon. The tools people are talking about are just that - tools that can allow the task to be done better (when used in the correct context) and arguably reduce time by automating the donkey work. They aren't actually taking over the "thinking" part though.

Show me an AI system that can plan out a real design (involving more than a single component), based on nothing more than a brief and then I'll start to worry... I've yet to see anything that can actually do that.
Oof... This is actually a big bag to discuss, as it depends on everyone's understanding of what constitutes "thinking". I'd argue, within the context of AI's, the term is used a bit loosely compared to, say, psychology. Machines won't have creative thinking (which is one of the base elements of "thinking"), but they will have pretty much everything else: learning, decision making and memory. If you simplify the "creative" aspect to just a more complex method of "try-adapt-learn-try again", you could argue machine AI, even at this stage, has a degree of intelligence and can replace a lot of common-ground tasks (simple ones).

I've seen lab reports of AIs getting close to parrot's level of intelligence. So we're not that far away from getting them to perform menial tasks and fully replace job positions that don't require complex decisioning or complex creative process. And for those, there's a HUGE bunch.

Cheers!
 
Reactions: cdrkf
Oof... This is actually a big bag to discuss, as it depends on everyone's understanding of what constitutes "thinking". I'd argue, within the context of AI's, the term is used a bit loosely compared to, say, psychology. Machines won't have creative thinking (which is one of the base elements of "thinking"), but they will have pretty much everything else: learning, decision making and memory. If you simplify the "creative" aspect to just a more complex method of "try-adapt-learn-try again", you could argue machine AI, even at this stage, has a degree of intelligence and can replace a lot of common-ground tasks (simple ones).

I've seen lab reports of AIs getting close to parrot's level of intelligence. So we're not that far away from getting them to perform menial tasks and fully replace job positions that don't require complex decisioning or complex creative process. And for those, there's a HUGE bunch.

Cheers!
I think the real problem here is one of definition; "intelligence" itself doesn't have a clear definition.

I would take the side that what we have today are just highly-advanced cases of specialized learning. There's no way for these AIs to learn new behaviors spontaneously, and there's no way to apply said behaviors to a slightly different use case. Making a good SC2 AI doesn't mean it will be anything but rubbish in SC1. Making an AI that can beat World 1-1 of SMB won't help it in World 1-2. They learn for very limited use cases, but have no ability to apply that knowledge to different, but similar cases. To me, that implies no real intelligence.
 
Reactions: cdrkf

ASK THE COMMUNITY