Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
facebook.com
Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
1–10 of 216 posts
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#2Totally agree, it's a bit like when some physicists were convinced that there wouldn't be other great breakthroughs after Maxwell's theory of electromagnetics. Maybe Yann LeCun is the Einstein of Machine Learning? haha
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#3I'm surprised he'd make such an optimistic statement. I think a better analogy would be:
We figured out how to make icing, but we still don't really know what a cake is.
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#4The cake is a lie. Obviously :)
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#5I think we need more advances in neuroscience and, I know this will be controversial, psychology before we really know what the cake even is.
Edit:
I actually think the major AI breakthrough will come from either of those two fields, not computer science.
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#6I think we need more advances in neuroscience and, I know this will be controversial, psychology before we really know what the cake even is. Edit: I actually think the major AI breakthrough will come from either of those two fields, not computer science.
> I know this will be controversial, psychology
Why would that be controversial? It seems to make extremely good sense and even though it may be doubted in some circles I think that most people involved in AI research are painfully aware of our limited understanding of our own psyche.
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#7The cake is a lie. Obviously :)
reddit is over there ->
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#8The statement that he's critiquing does reflect the wider-spread, overly simplistic view of AI. Contrary to hype, recent events represent only partial development/peeling of the top layer from the AI onion, which has more known unknowns and unknown unknowns than known knowns.
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#9Can someone elaborate the difference between reinforcement learning and unsupervised learning? It seems that I mistakenly think that human learns through reinforcement learning, that we learn by the feedback from the outside world. I mean without feedback from aldult can a baby even learn how to walk?
Re: Yann LeCun's comment on AlphaGo and true AI
#10I think we need more advances in neuroscience and, I know this will be controversial, psychology before we really know what the cake even is. Edit: I actually think the major AI breakthrough will come from either of those two fields, not computer science.
> I know this will be controversial, psychology Why would that be controversial? It seems to make extremely good sense and even though it may be doubted in some circles I think that most people involved in AI research are painfully aware of our limited understanding of our own psyche.
I disagree with hacknat (and the reason I suspect it's controversial) because psychology is generally far too high-level (e.g. focused on things like traits and high-level behavior and vague "perceptions") and has far too little empirical rigor for engineers to be able to build any sort of actual system from insights gleaned from psychology. The recent replication crisis in psychology does little to help this reputation.
Neuroscience does concern itself a great deal with low level biological mechanisms and architectures, and is more amenable to cross-pollination with machine learning.
Though I would like to point out that thus far deep learning has taken few ideas from neuroscience.