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

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#141

Post by po63 »

zardo wrote: post #55
Animats wrote: post #45

Machine learning may be nearing its ceiling. The history of AI goes in cycles. Someone has a good idea which solves some problems, followed by "strong AI Real Soon Now" enthusiasm, followed by that idea hitting its ceiling. AI has been through search, backtracking, the General Problem Solver, hill-climbing, and expert systems. Each was overhyped at the time, and each hit its ceiling. The big difference this time is t…

>The big difference this time is that the ceiling with machine learning is high enough for large-scale profitable applications. That wasn't the case with the previous rounds. My company (fortune 500) depends on expert systems, some even date back to the 80's AI boom. Doing what we do, at the scale we do it, would simply not be possible without them. Lots of companies make a lot of money with expert systems, but they…

:) The incentive all good corporate robots need, to fund research is generally completed research funded by the public. We know this. Don't worry yourself too much. We'll call you when we need a freeloader.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#142

Post by dilemma »

dnautics wrote: post #19
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.

Among those who believe in AGI are Tesla, Google, Baidu, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#143

Post by eanzenberg »

function_seven wrote: post #103
eanzenberg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how little people on this site know or understand intelligence, artificial and human. You would be surprised how much infants learn from listening around them and how long it takes to learn that language, and how a brain interprets language was formed through so many years of evolution to be highly tuned to learn language fast.

We're arguing past each other then. I have no doubt that evolution is the essential thing that made us capable of unsupervised learning. That's not the central point of the debate for me. What I'm talking about is the problem of replicating that ability (unsupervised learning) in AI systems. We don't have the luxury of billions of years of evolution to do it. So we need to engineer another way. I understood your prev…

Yes you're an idiot with an army of trolls ready to downvote me. Read the above comments to get a sense of how much of an idiot you are about intelligence.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#144

Post by sctb »

eanzenberg wrote: post #143
function_seven wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're arguing past each other then. I have no doubt that evolution is the essential thing that made us capable of unsupervised learning. That's not the central point of the debate for me. What I'm talking about is the problem of replicating that ability (unsupervised learning) in AI systems. We don't have the luxury of billions of years of evolution to do it. So we need to engineer another way. I understood your prev…

Yes you're an idiot with an army of trolls ready to downvote me. Read the above comments to get a sense of how much of an idiot you are about intelligence.

This comment seriously violates the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please stop and re-read them.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#145

Post by phkahler »

tree_of_item wrote: post #64
phkahler wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Most of the time for biological intelligence there isn't an oracle describing the truth at every moment of life to judge actions/decisions against. Is it possible that your conscious self is the oracle that provides feedback to subconscious networks?

No, why would "your conscious self" know any of the answers? The problems biological organisms face aren't even well defined enough to have "answers" generally.

People learn many things by being told a set of rules and/or objectives. Over time they can self-evaluate their performance against those rules and objective.

I suppose an animal may have a need - it feel hungry. If it can satisfy that need then it should reinforce whatever it did to get not-hungry. I suppose that doesn't require conscious awareness. But at some level of complexity we have to be able to plan more complex actions (hunting, tracking) and be able to self-evaluate performance on the sub-tasks used to get food.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#146

Post by cityhall »

davidwihl wrote: post #125
ghthor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that Numenta will break the ceiling that we're coming to now. I have quite a few upcoming personal projects that I plan to use there neural network(HTM) structure to enhance, the key being enhance. The mindset that I feel is lacking in the ML/AI community is that we should be creating systems that can be augmented and improved using AI, the product itself should stand alone without using any AI at all. This is…

From Yann LeCunn. --- Numenta, Vicarious, NuPic, HTM, CLA, etc. Jeff Hawkins has the right intuition and the right philosophy. Some of us have had similar ideas for several decades. Certainly, we all agree that AI systems of the future will be hierarchical (it’s the very idea of deep learning) and will use temporal prediction. But the difficulty is to instantiate these concepts and reduce them to practice. Another di…

MNIST error rates are noise these days, but otherwise agree. These guys have been around for the entire deep learning boom of the last decade, and have never produced results to match their handwaving predictions. They're the Moller Skycar of the field.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#147

Post by cityhall »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26
iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

You need to learn without someone telling you what the answer is. Most of the time for biological intelligence there isn't an oracle describing the truth at every moment of life to judge actions/decisions against. There is: Death, without reproducing. If an organism dies quickly but left children, they were biologically successful. If you didn't, then your evolutionary branch goes away. I'm not sure this can be simul…

That's a different problem. Some things are hard wired by biology, but individual organisms learn during their lives in spite of vague feedback. That's what we're trying to replicate.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#148

Post by flamedoge »

bonzini wrote: post #110
eanzenberg wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been passed down over 3.5 billion years to form the DNA that creates that part of the brain in an infant. AKA pre-trained.

Not really, they develop it by sucking on their thumbs, drinking amniotic fluid, etc. You can see it develop, and you can see how premature babies have issues with it. Adding "breathe" to sucking and swallowing is even harder for preemies. Starting to suck when they feel something on their lips _is_ a reflex though, it isn't learnt.

reflex = pre-trained?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#149

Post by flamedoge »

felippee wrote: post #102
eanzenberg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things you described can be explained by having a pre-trained model built from DNA. Babies aren't a blank slate. Why would you even think they are? Do you think a baby learns to breath from blank-slate intelligence?

If what you are saying was true, then why all these skills require time to develop? If they are pre-programmed in the DNA, why are they not enabled on the day of birth? Clearly from evolutionary point of view an infant that is already able to walk and perceive depth would have vastly superior chances of survival? Why all the brain development, and much enhanced plasticity in the early stage of development? Why do neu…

> If what you are saying was true, then why all these skills require time to develop? If they are pre-programmed in the DNA, why are they not enabled on the day of birth?

I'd argue that we see clear examples of such in animals that do require those for immediate survival. We ought to think about it as a consequence of natural selection rather than a 'necessity' that is somehow intelligently pre-programmed for survival. It's far more likely that path to early survival traits were mutational (accidental) rather than supervised.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#150

Post by zardo »

po63 wrote: post #141
zardo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The big difference this time is that the ceiling with machine learning is high enough for large-scale profitable applications. That wasn't the case with the previous rounds. My company (fortune 500) depends on expert systems, some even date back to the 80's AI boom. Doing what we do, at the scale we do it, would simply not be possible without them. Lots of companies make a lot of money with expert systems, but they…

:) The incentive all good corporate robots need, to fund research is generally completed research funded by the public. We know this. Don't worry yourself too much. We'll call you when we need a freeloader.

It's no my corporation. It's just the one devouring my soul.
Post reply on HN