Live data from Hacker News

Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

nytimes.com

51–60 of 189 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because neural networks are fundamentally dynamic systems that are much easier to model with continuous signals than discrete bits. A lot of the hardness comes from the fact that you are discretizing fundamentally continuous signals.

Quite the opposite, neural network research & experiments show that discreteness isn't a problem - in particular, there's no benefit on having a model with more fine-grained values and that even extremely discrete models (e.g 8 bits or less) work quite well.

There are advantages to having Calculus operations as first class citizens.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly expectation has to catch up to reality. Woah, you feel expectations are behind reality? I feel there's a lot of news lately predicting AGI.

I actually do feel that expectations are behind reality, at least amongst those who are just barely too smart for their own good. I still see comments daily on HN or Reddit that promote the narrative that there is no AGI, people only work on ML, and all ML is a narrow party trick. And I think that is a terrible characterization of what, e.g., the computational neuroscientists are doing. Peruse some of the research ha…

Maybe because, gods forbid, people judge by real-world results and not by the words of a bunch of narrow specialists patting themselves on the back?

The author's points still stand. Robots do fall over trying to open doors and they don't invent new ways to climb a chair. This is a fact. The terrible characterization you speak of is well-founded in observable reality. That is a fact as well.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#53
post #50

The author is just spouting off on a topic he doesn't understand. It's just a rehashing of Chomsky's hatred of statistical NLP. He pulls off the neat trick of approximating knowledge of artificial intelligence by hoodwinking the New York Times, but he doesn’t have insight into the topic he's talking about.

I believe he has much more insight than most AI researchers/engineers. What's going on in AI right know looks exactly like what happened in the 1960s, sucking all the resources into something (i.e Deep Learning) without looking at the big picture, without looking at epistemological questions, and not training new grads on solid AI foundations anymore like probability theory and logic. Not asking the right questions in terms of expressivity of models, sensitivity analysis, robustness and manifold learning. The next AI winter is coming.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#54
post #50

The author is just spouting off on a topic he doesn't understand. It's just a rehashing of Chomsky's hatred of statistical NLP. He pulls off the neat trick of approximating knowledge of artificial intelligence by hoodwinking the New York Times, but he doesn’t have insight into the topic he's talking about.

Can you describe what you mean by "he doesn't understand"? His background is in psychology and neuro science so his view on intelligence is probably quite different than person coming from computer science.

For me he puts words onto something I've felt recently, that what we're doing is cool and all, but just doesn't feel like the right way to approach it. We're just putting loads of data and computing power into something that produces results that looks intelligent, but digging deeper bares no resemblence to what a neuro scientist would call intelligent..

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#55

Click-baity. AI tech isn't stuck. There are many forthcoming breakthroughs, particularly in medicine, which should really benefit humanity. Radiology is poised to let CNNs make radiologists a lot more efficient. We just need to build the labeled datasets. If we invest heavily in some AI tech, let it be to produce huge medical datasets. The software and hardware is ready. We're only lacking sufficient data to make mor…

> There are many forthcoming breakthroughs... We just need to build...

Not sure how you don't see the irony. This has probably been said thousands of times for many scientific areas throughout history. Example:

There are forthcoming breakthroughs in humanity being an interstellar civilization. We just need to build faster-than-light engines and terraforming equipment. Nothing major, right?

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is an analog computer "easier to program" than a digital computer? Making neural networks do what you want is hard enough with the help of tons of libraries, decent scripting languages, the ability to dump the weights into a file and inspect them, etc. Programming with an analog computer, which I'm guessing would be something like programming with FPGAs, sounds like a nightmare in comparison.

Because neural networks are fundamentally dynamic systems that are much easier to model with continuous signals than discrete bits. A lot of the hardness comes from the fact that you are discretizing fundamentally continuous signals.

Well, yes, that's where some of the hardness comes from... but how do you build a predictive model capable of transfer learning without disentangling the latent factors? How do you perform one-shot learning without being able to lay down discrete episodic memories?

I'd say that rather than a continuous analog data stream needing an analog model, the real problem is that the causality (hence predictability - the goal) of this data stream is due to discrete actors and actions and therefore we need to discretize the stream into objects and spatio-temporal events.

Anyhow, we're making great strides with ANNs on the perceptual side to the point where it's almost a solved problem... What's lacking (outside of DeepMind) is more of a focus on intelligent embedded agents, complete with lifetime continuous learning, and adaptive behavior. IMO we're focusing too much on artificial isolated problems rather than the embedded systems/agents that are the real goal!

Just as ImageNet - and human competitiveness - drove vision research, what could accelerate AI research would be a similar annual competition for embedded agents (either in a simulated environment or maybe robots in a competition space), which would at least focus efforts on building systems and addressing the goal of AI rather than breaking it down into someone's (maybe incorrect) notions of the piece-parts necessary to get there.

Some people shy away from robotics as an unwelcome added complexity, but that never stopped the popular micromouse competitions, and these sorts of competition could go a very long way with simple robots/vehicles (e.g. based on Lego mindstorms or R/C vehicles) with remote compute.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#57
post #50

The author is just spouting off on a topic he doesn't understand. It's just a rehashing of Chomsky's hatred of statistical NLP. He pulls off the neat trick of approximating knowledge of artificial intelligence by hoodwinking the New York Times, but he doesn’t have insight into the topic he's talking about.

Can you describe what you mean by "he doesn't understand"? His background is in psychology and neuro science so his view on intelligence is probably quite different than person coming from computer science. For me he puts words onto something I've felt recently, that what we're doing is cool and all, but just doesn't feel like the right way to approach it. We're just putting loads of data and computing power into som…

I feel like you're conflating sentience and intelligence. Algorithms don't have to reduce to anything special to display intelligent behavior. After all, humans reduce to chemistry. All that is required is the ability to solve problems.

As for sentience, we don't understand it, so the only way we'd recognize it is if it was extremely similar to human sentience.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#58
post #50

The author is just spouting off on a topic he doesn't understand. It's just a rehashing of Chomsky's hatred of statistical NLP. He pulls off the neat trick of approximating knowledge of artificial intelligence by hoodwinking the New York Times, but he doesn’t have insight into the topic he's talking about.

Can you describe what you mean by "he doesn't understand"? His background is in psychology and neuro science so his view on intelligence is probably quite different than person coming from computer science. For me he puts words onto something I've felt recently, that what we're doing is cool and all, but just doesn't feel like the right way to approach it. We're just putting loads of data and computing power into som…

I'm riffing on his writing --

> Even Google Translate, which pulls off the neat trick of approximating translations by statistically associating sentences across languages, doesn’t understand a word of what it is translating.

This is just another incarnation of "AI is the thing we haven't done." He's parroting Chomsky's disdain for statistical models and John Searle's fundamental misunderstanding of AI. For the former, Norvig has a fair rundown of Chomsky's complaints (http://norvig.com/chomsky.html).

> bears no resemblance to what a neuroscientist would call intelligent

TensorFlow gets results. The neuroscientist can claim it's a P-zombie, but they need to point to some criteria for accepting something as intelligence. Otherwise we're just moving goalposts.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#59

An agent can be intelligent without it learning how to read human language. Look around, most organisms in our world communicate using extremely simple binary language or don't communicate verbally at all. Yet, they are intelligent enough to do very complicated tasks which current robots fail to do. Intelligence is an easier problem than language, and thus should be solved before language. What a sigh of relief to re…

> Look around, most organisms in our world communicate using extremely simple binary language or don't communicate verbally at all. Yes. > Yet, they are intelligent enough to do very complicated tasks which current robots fail to do. True. > Intelligence is an easier problem than language, and thus should be solved before language. Wrong. This is the classic mistake everybody makes, including people in Computer Scien…

If I am following you correctly, you are arguing that walking is a harder problem than language because it took much longer to evolve.

This seems to assume that a facility for language and advanced mathematics is independent of the existence of a nervous system capable of flexibly interacting with the environment, but it seems plausible, indeed probable, that language, consciousness and math depend heavily on the prior neural infrastructure, and their development was the most recent step in a process that has been going on since the evolution of the first synapse.

On the other hand, I am skeptical of the somewhat popular view that the key to generalized AI is to make robots that interact more thoroughly with their environment, and that they will then find their own way to language and consciousness. Partly, this is because I do not think that if you intentionally pursue the robotic goal, you will necessarily create the sort of infrastructure that is generalized enough to be the basis for the emergence of language.

Re: Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck

#60

An agent can be intelligent without it learning how to read human language. Look around, most organisms in our world communicate using extremely simple binary language or don't communicate verbally at all. Yet, they are intelligent enough to do very complicated tasks which current robots fail to do. Intelligence is an easier problem than language, and thus should be solved before language. What a sigh of relief to re…

> Look around, most organisms in our world communicate using extremely simple binary language or don't communicate verbally at all. Yes. > Yet, they are intelligent enough to do very complicated tasks which current robots fail to do. True. > Intelligence is an easier problem than language, and thus should be solved before language. Wrong. This is the classic mistake everybody makes, including people in Computer Scien…

well we have the advantage of only copying nature that already works the hardest part is already done the Zero to One.

Nost of human technology today is based on replicating nature.

Post reply on HN