Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#11

Post by 52-6F-62 »

tw1010 wrote: post #8
bra-ket wrote: post #5

If you are interested in biologically plausible models of cognition check out 'vector symbolic architectures' and 'associative memory' research of the 90s.

Biological plausibility is just silly. What it mostly does is just put artificial constraints on the problem that doesn't need to be there. It's all mathematics. However you want to interpret or metaphorize the mathematics is up to each math-phobic field, but constraining yourself to what randomly evolved serves little good.

While it's likely true that there are other ways to approach the problem, we're yet unsure of how to get there. The existing biological model has as least proven itself to work to some level, at least insofar as Descartes has lead us to believe.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#13

Post by bra-ket »

tw1010 wrote: post #8
bra-ket wrote: post #5

If you are interested in biologically plausible models of cognition check out 'vector symbolic architectures' and 'associative memory' research of the 90s.

Biological plausibility is just silly. What it mostly does is just put artificial constraints on the problem that doesn't need to be there. It's all mathematics. However you want to interpret or metaphorize the mathematics is up to each math-phobic field, but constraining yourself to what randomly evolved serves little good.

If the objective is to simulate general intelligence then you want to copy the natural one as closely as possible. Simulating is easier than inventing.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#14

Post by tw1010 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #11
tw1010 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biological plausibility is just silly. What it mostly does is just put artificial constraints on the problem that doesn't need to be there. It's all mathematics. However you want to interpret or metaphorize the mathematics is up to each math-phobic field, but constraining yourself to what randomly evolved serves little good.

While it's likely true that there are other ways to approach the problem, we're yet unsure of how to get there. The existing biological model has as least proven itself to work to some level, at least insofar as Descartes has lead us to believe.

I would bet a lot of money that engineers testing model after model in a state of flow, without any concern for biological validity, will yield a better result than any biologically inspired thing will. Time efficiency is also an important factor here. The model that will win is the one that is first to "market" (academic paper).

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#15

Post by zwerdlds »

S_A_P wrote: post #12

So it says "In 1986, Geoffrey Hinton co-authored a paper that, four decades later, is central to the explosion of artificial intelligence." Is it just me that considers that 3 decades? I am curious which is the typo. Was it 76? or 3 decades?

I was trying to rationalize it this way:

1980's - first decade

1990's - second decade

2000's - third decade

2010's - fourth decade

I guess, technically, the third decade of age for this paper ended in 2016, making 2017 the fourth.

But this seems like silly ways to rationalize it. Genuinely seems like a typo.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#16

Post by ethnic_throw »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #9
LeeHwang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the theory of scientific revolution ?

That's the one. I'm actually just finishing it up now, so it's fresh enough in my mind that it jumps out at me in application.

I'd be careful reading it: Kuhn is excellent at building narratives, and what is more narrative friendly than revolution? In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges.

Unfortunately while I think many of Kuhn's observations are interesting, I'm confused what you think scientists might learn from them. After all, the work in question is science, not philosophy of science, and frankly it seems a lot of time like the latter gets in the way of work (see: Popper's radical empiricism). Poetic? Sure. Useful? Difficult to see how.... Mostly his work seems useful for bolstering the credibility of speculative Popular Science articles (or Axios in this case).

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#19

Post by dnautics »

Eridrus wrote: post #4

Obviously a clickbait headline, few people think current tech will lead to AGI, but while we all wait on a new breakthrough in AI, we can build much more impressive systems with what we have now than even a few years ago. I went to a talk from people who had built more scalable training algorithms for Restricted Boltzmann Mahcines (which Hinton was a pioneer in) a few months ago and asked them why they had chosen to…

I don't think that's correct. There are a lot of people who should know better that think that the current ml technology will lead to agi.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#20

Post by kobeya »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #10
tw1010 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's great that top researchers are actually learning from Kuhn's observations. I have hope that humanity can indeed learn from its earlier historical mistakes, but it requires us to be very aware of them in order to collectively avoid them.

I agree. Mr Hinton was somewhat vague and brief in his statements here, though. What do you think the crisis point is that he's reached exactly? (It must be sure enough for the man who introduced the paradigm in the first place to have caught on, yet the change of thought process unclear enough for him to recognize that it will be somebody newer who will have to introduce something else)

I think his quote is out of context. If he is saying that back propagation networks alone are insufficient for AGI, that is neither surprising nor controversial. Hinton has never been working on the AGI problem. It sounds more like the author is making use of the quotes he/she got from Hinton in the most clickbaity way possible.
Post reply on HN