So I assume this is one of the projects Sama was talking about in his research initiatives. Sounds promising.
Introducing OpenAI
21–30 of 392 posts
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#22I can't think of another field of research that's simultaneously brought the potential to solve all the world's problems and the potential to end life as we know it. Very appreciative to see so many great minds working on ensuring AI heralds in more of the former, and none of the latter.
They said this 60 years when AI began.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#23I can't think of another field of research that's simultaneously brought the potential to solve all the world's problems and the potential to end life as we know it. Very appreciative to see so many great minds working on ensuring AI heralds in more of the former, and none of the latter.
nuclear research.
You might like this: https://np.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3v7zhv/why_are_n...
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#24This is about 100 years too early. Seriously why do people think neural networks are the answer to AI? They are proven to be stupid outside of their training data. We have such a long way to go. This fear-mongering is pointless.
What does it feel like to be so confident in an opinion while so many brilliant scientists disagree with you?
Please let's resist taking this thread flameward. The GP contains both a substantive point and provocation, which isn't great. In such cases, the helpful way to respond is to de-escalate, by addressing the substantive point and ignoring the provocation.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#25Not the first. Back in the 1980s when expert systems were thought to be the way to AI, there was OpenCyc. Its still around.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#26This is about 100 years too early. Seriously why do people think neural networks are the answer to AI? They are proven to be stupid outside of their training data. We have such a long way to go. This fear-mongering is pointless.
So throw more data at it then.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#27Did not expect Infosys or Vishal Sikka along with what is mostly SV who's who.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#28In all seriousness... does "just, wow" communicate something different from "wow?"
Yes, given that statements on the internet do not convey tone or delivery (see: Poe's Law), any additional clues are helpful in understanding the author's full meaning. In this case, with the author's use of punctuation and "Side note:", I can practically hear them speaking, which is what we should aim for in good writing.
You're being downvoted, but I think it's an interesting point.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#29This is about 100 years too early. Seriously why do people think neural networks are the answer to AI? They are proven to be stupid outside of their training data. We have such a long way to go. This fear-mongering is pointless.
In terms of artificial general intelligence, the kind of stuff that gets associated with 'the singularity' etc. - I agree - there is seemingly nothing at all out there that appears to even be on a trajectory, I mean even theoretically, to coming close. But sure, for more narrow specializations, disrupting certain industries, there is a lot that could be advanced on a short time scale.
I don't think the big breakthroughs in artificial general intelligence are going to come from well funded scientific researchers anyways, they are going to come out of left field from where you least expect it.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked site says nothing about neural networks.
"we've also started to see what it might be like for computers to be [creative], to [dream], and to [experience the world]." All three of those links are about neural networks.
So you've turned "what it might be like" with a couple examples of mild AI-ish tasks that caught the public's attention this year into "the answer"?