AI is a pretty huge field, what area are they going to focus on specifically?
Introducing OpenAI
81–90 of 392 posts
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#82Not the first. Back in the 1980s when expert systems were thought to be the way to AI, there was OpenCyc. Its still around.
And just how many microLenats of bogosity does OpenCyc have?
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#83[deleted]
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. Humans can adapt to many environments by pulling in training from other related environments and applying it to the new data. Some call this generalised learning, but I think it points more to our ability to shape everything we know to any given problem - something 'beyond' just generalising.
You're over-glorifying humans. We're still just a savannah ape and our skills reflect that.
What? The brain has not only solved the vision problem (reconstructing depth from still images, recognising the objects in the scene, and filling in the occluded parts), it has also solved the motion problem of coordinated the movement of our ~300 muscles (given constraints, how do I move from A to B, or pickup the cup, or do a handstand), as well as solved the memory problem (basically infinite memory, with some sort of priority system for removing unused/old memories so we can always learn more). Additionally it solved the communication problem with language that computers still can't parse properly. It is so smart it is even conscious, and self-aware as well as death-aware.
This is not over-glorifying. That is fact.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#85AI is a pretty huge field, what area are they going to focus on specifically?
Given Musk's public comments about existential threats, I assume the focus will be on friendly AI theory and implementations, akin to what MIRI does.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#86Re: Introducing OpenAI
#87$1B in committed funding. Just, wow. Side note: I wonder if the Strong AI argument can benefit from something akin to Pascal's Wager, in that the upside of being right is ~infinite with only a finite downside in the opposing case.
It's hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society, and it's equally hard to imagine how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly.
The high-stakes wager isn't success vs failure in creating strong AI, it's what happens if you do succeed.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#88This is a key takeaway: "...we are going to ask YC companies to make whatever data they are comfortable making available to OpenAI. And Elon is also going to figure out what data Tesla and Space X can share."
Money is great, openness is great, big name researchers are also a huge plus. But data data data, that could turn out to be very valuable. I don't know if Sam meant that YC companies would be encouraged to contribute data openly, as in making potentially valuable business assets available to the public, or that the data would be available to the OpenAI Fellows (or whatever they're called). Either way, it could be a huge gain for research and development.
I know that I don't get a wish list here, but if I did it would be nice to see OpenAI encourage the following from its researchers:
1) All publications should include code and data whenever possible. Things like gitxiv are helping, but this is far from being an AI community standard
2) Encourage people to try to surpass benchmarks established by their published research, when possible. Many modern ML papers play with results and parameters until they can show that their new method out performs every other method. It would be great to see an institution say "Here's the best our method can do on dataset X, can you beat it and how?"
3) Sponsor competitions frequently. The Netflix Prize was a huge learning experience for a lot of people, and continues to be a valuable educational resource. We need more of that
4) Try to encourage a diversity of backgrounds. IF they choose to sponsor competitions, it would be cool if they let winners or those who performed well join OpenAI as researchers at least for awhile, even if they don't have PhDs in computer science
The "evil" AI and safety stuff is just science fiction, but whatever. Hopefully they will be able to use their resources and position to move the state of AI forward
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it feel like to be so confident in an opinion while so many brilliant scientists disagree with you?
I'm not the same guy, but I'd like to answer: Familiar, that's how it feels. I'm confident that I'm right about the other matter, and subjects are related, so I'm not bothered.
I don't think openai was formed to concentrate on neural networks, and I think we can assume the members are well aware of the limitations of neural nets.
I just don't understand the folks that are so confident that strong AI is either not possible, or not achievable within our lifetimes.
If you're in the camp that thinks it's not possible, then you must ascribe some sort of magical or spiritual significance to the human brain.
If you don't think it's possible inside of 100 years, then you're probably just extrapolating on history. The thing about breakthroughs is they never look like they're coming. Until they do.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#90Cool that they have $1 billion pledged. Curious how they will decide compensation, seeing as a lot of these figures would be making a ton in the industry.