The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet • Hacker News Board

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#151

Post by Bye_Felicia » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #138

Bye_Felicia wrote: post #59

...AND IT WON'T for a VERY LONG TIME. Those of us who know the origins of Ray Kurzweil, knew back then he was nothing special, and his ideas were derived from much smarter people around him. As I recall, the article in WIRED from like 20 years ago, talked about how he missed his dad, and how in the future you would be able to take a room full of all his dad's old crap, and AI would be able to recompile his dad into d…

Not sure how you can claim things like Deepmind are "vaporware" since it achieved exactly what it was intended to do. If you disagree that it should be called "AI", well that just comes down to semantics, but I think "Artificial Intelligence" is exactly what it is. Of course it will be possible to create synthetic consciousness eventually, why wouldn't it be? It may take 10 years or 10,000 years, but if you think it…

This came as no surprise to me, and hence, I was spared the pangs of disillusionment, but there are countless people who have actually dealt with IBM's marketing gimmick, Watson, and have come away with a serious hangover:

---

“Watson is a joke,” Chamath Palihapitiya, an influential tech investor who founded the VC firm Social Capital, said on CNBC in May.

A Reality Check for IBM’s AI Ambitions - MIT Technology Review

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607965/a-reality-check-fo...

Why Everyone Is Hating on IBM Watson—Including the People Who Helped Make It

https://gizmodo.com/why-everyone-is-hating-on-watson-includi...

Is IBM Watson A 'Joke'?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2017/07/02/is-ib...

---

The final article, is the most telling, in its revelations. Of course, you must speak the language to understand IBM's gartner magic quadrant-esqe based reasoning: Their argument is because a bunch of businesses they convinced to sign up have 'Watson' stamped on their engagement contracts, it's PROOF that Watson is breakthrough technology, catapulting research into a new era of big data and machine learning....lol

I'm not saying some of the things that IBM claims it does, cannot be currently done, but I no doubt at all the IBM is not doing it, and Watson is most certainly behind closed doors a complete joke.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#152

Post by Bye_Felicia » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

crististm wrote: post #104

Bye_Felicia wrote: post #59

...AND IT WON'T for a VERY LONG TIME. Those of us who know the origins of Ray Kurzweil, knew back then he was nothing special, and his ideas were derived from much smarter people around him. As I recall, the article in WIRED from like 20 years ago, talked about how he missed his dad, and how in the future you would be able to take a room full of all his dad's old crap, and AI would be able to recompile his dad into d…

I've discovered recently the lectures of Prof. Jordan Peterson. You can infer a lot of links between human behavior and shortcomings of AI. In some lectures he even touches the actual problems although on a tangent (e.g. what is relevant in the infinite complexity of the world and on the infinite levels on which you can analyze the world). Long story short, my claim is that the AI revolution will happen when the AI a…

Thanks for the support. Being the voice of reality is a lonely road, like introducing antibiotics in a petri dish of wildly speculating bacteria, the revulsion is instantaneous.

"How dare you claim IBM's Watson isn't BREAKTHROUGH?!"

"How dare you not want the same buggy useless software which powers siri and cortana to now be used to drive cars?!"

What are you cynical reality based folks talking about! Saudia Arabia granted citizenship to it's first robot. Clearly you hate science! If AI wasn't real yet, why would they do that!?

Lifelike 'Sophia' Robot Granted Citizenship to Saudi Arabia https://www.livescience.com/60815-saudi-arabia-citizen-robot...

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#153

Post by crististm » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #138

Bye_Felicia wrote: post #59

...AND IT WON'T for a VERY LONG TIME. Those of us who know the origins of Ray Kurzweil, knew back then he was nothing special, and his ideas were derived from much smarter people around him. As I recall, the article in WIRED from like 20 years ago, talked about how he missed his dad, and how in the future you would be able to take a room full of all his dad's old crap, and AI would be able to recompile his dad into d…

Not sure how you can claim things like Deepmind are "vaporware" since it achieved exactly what it was intended to do. If you disagree that it should be called "AI", well that just comes down to semantics, but I think "Artificial Intelligence" is exactly what it is. Of course it will be possible to create synthetic consciousness eventually, why wouldn't it be? It may take 10 years or 10,000 years, but if you think it…

It's enough to replicate one of the 'AI' projects to see the vaporware yourself. You don't need to go above the university project level. Even a hobby level project will be enough to convince you of the absurdity of current claims of AI

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#154

Post by nextos » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 8:38 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #120

rdlecler1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as the MIT school of though. This group was saying that we’d have strong AI back in the 60s. I believe that a brute force math approach that lacks a larger theory of how neural networks give us intelligence is going to be the slow path forward.

I was proposing how to make progress in understanding some of the data manipulations being done now by what appears to be most of ML/AI. That is, for the data manipulations, get those from the consequences of some theorems. For an example, apparently regression is important in current ML/AI: Well, going way back, 50+ years, we have a lot of solid math for regression. Then I mentioned that from Euclid through calculus…

Stochastic processes and control theory, as in Çinlar or Bertsekas, will definitely contribute towards strong AI, if we ever achieve that.

But don't you think we also need more powerful, but less mathematically tractable, formalisms like probabilistic programs [1]?

[1] https://probmods.org/

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#155

Post by MattRix » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

crististm wrote: post #153

MattRix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you can claim things like Deepmind are "vaporware" since it achieved exactly what it was intended to do. If you disagree that it should be called "AI", well that just comes down to semantics, but I think "Artificial Intelligence" is exactly what it is. Of course it will be possible to create synthetic consciousness eventually, why wouldn't it be? It may take 10 years or 10,000 years, but if you think it…

It's enough to replicate one of the 'AI' projects to see the vaporware yourself. You don't need to go above the university project level. Even a hobby level project will be enough to convince you of the absurdity of current claims of AI

What do you even mean? DeepMind is not vaporware, it really did revolutionize the world of Go. What about self-driving cars? They are actually working! Anyone who calls AI vaporware just has bizarre expectations that are based in sci-fi rather than reality.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#156

Post by MattRix » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

Bye_Felicia wrote: post #151

MattRix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you can claim things like Deepmind are "vaporware" since it achieved exactly what it was intended to do. If you disagree that it should be called "AI", well that just comes down to semantics, but I think "Artificial Intelligence" is exactly what it is. Of course it will be possible to create synthetic consciousness eventually, why wouldn't it be? It may take 10 years or 10,000 years, but if you think it…

This came as no surprise to me, and hence, I was spared the pangs of disillusionment, but there are countless people who have actually dealt with IBM's marketing gimmick, Watson, and have come away with a serious hangover: --- “Watson is a joke,” Chamath Palihapitiya, an influential tech investor who founded the VC firm Social Capital, said on CNBC in May. A Reality Check for IBM’s AI Ambitions - MIT Technology Revie…

I didn't even mention Watson, since I know nothing about it. Even if Watson is a complete sham, it doesn't mean ALL AI projects are shams!

For example, you can't say that DeepMind is vaporware. AlphaGo is real, and it works. Self-driving cars are real, and they work, etc.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#157

Post by MattRix » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

Bye_Felicia wrote: post #152

crististm wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've discovered recently the lectures of Prof. Jordan Peterson. You can infer a lot of links between human behavior and shortcomings of AI. In some lectures he even touches the actual problems although on a tangent (e.g. what is relevant in the infinite complexity of the world and on the infinite levels on which you can analyze the world). Long story short, my claim is that the AI revolution will happen when the AI a…

Thanks for the support. Being the voice of reality is a lonely road, like introducing antibiotics in a petri dish of wildly speculating bacteria, the revulsion is instantaneous. "How dare you claim IBM's Watson isn't BREAKTHROUGH?!" "How dare you not want the same buggy useless software which powers siri and cortana to now be used to drive cars?!" What are you cynical reality based folks talking about! Saudia Arabia…

Saying you don't want self-driving cars really IS insane. They are already way better at driving than humans in many situations, and they are only going to improve with time.

Even if you don't believe they are good enough now, to say that they are NEVER going to be good enough is ridiculous.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#158

Post by zapita » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #94

zapita wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that the average business is unlikely to be writing any sort of software , other than perhaps basic Excel formulas... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to use advanced software development techniques such as ML.

I would suggest that not writing any sort of software is a good proxy for going out of business soon. I also think you would be surprised at how many businesses both do, and really want and value, software - but don't have anyone convincing to do it for them

> I also think you would be surprised

Unless you have some sort of evidence supporting your claim, I guess we'll never know how surprised I would be by the reality you're describing.

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#159

Post by shoguning » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

riyadparvez wrote: post #61

shoguning wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am of a similar opinion. There was a real revolution in ~2011-2013 with deep learning. These have achieved much better results in image/speech tasks. These gains have leveled off, and we're seeing some limitations. At current trajectory, we're not headed towards a general intelligence. Progress has been made, but there are big gaps. Smart home devices are a great case in point. They are somewhat flexible in the voi…

Post-2013 breakthroughs off top of my head are: * Wavenet, now productionized at Google as text to speech * Alpha[Go]Zero * Neural Machine Translation, on production at Google

AFAIK, these are all implementations of deep learning or similar, not a fundamentally new architecture. We'll continue to see these as DL matures, but it doesn't address the shortcomings of the technique.

For more perspective: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631

Re: The AI Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

#160

Post by graycat » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 1:46 AM UTC

nextos wrote: post #154

graycat wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was proposing how to make progress in understanding some of the data manipulations being done now by what appears to be most of ML/AI. That is, for the data manipulations, get those from the consequences of some theorems. For an example, apparently regression is important in current ML/AI: Well, going way back, 50+ years, we have a lot of solid math for regression. Then I mentioned that from Euclid through calculus…

Stochastic processes and control theory, as in Çinlar or Bertsekas, will definitely contribute towards strong AI, if we ever achieve that. But don't you think we also need more powerful, but less mathematically tractable, formalisms like probabilistic programs [1]? [1] https://probmods.org/

> Stochastic processes and control theory, as in Çinlar or Bertsekas, will definitely contribute towards strong AI, if we ever achieve that.

My view is that for high end applications of computing now, drawing from, building on, Çinlar or Bertsekas is about the best we can do and, due to current computing and the Internet, suddenly terrific.

But my view of something real in AI, say, as good as a kitty cat, ..., human will much more directly use very different approaches; that if in the basic core programming there is some math in there, then it will be darned simple.

So, my current view is that the good approaches to such AI will make direct use of little or no pure or applied math. Instead, my guess is that animal ... human intelligence is just some dared clever programming, rediscovered and re-refined so far many times here on earth. From the many times, my guess is that there is basically one quite simple way to do it.

My guess is that the sensory inputs, first, feed data that becomes in the brain essentially nouns: Floor, rock, water, etc. Early on the data on the nouns is quite crude, but later with more experience gets refined. E.g., a kitty cat quickly learns that floors are solid to stand and run on, and some are shaky and might result in a fall. Then with more input and experience, some verbs are combined with some of the nouns. The strength of the combining is mostly just from experience; yes, we could write out some simple strength updating algebra. But to be cautious, the learning is deliberately slow: E.g., not everything round on the floor is good to eat.

There is a continual process to simplify this data, i.e., a form of data compression, into causality, e.g., learn about gravity. The learning is good enough to identify the concept of gravity as the cause that makes things fall and to reject irrelevant data like just what are falling from, a table, a window seat, the top of a BBQ pit, a tree limb, the second floor landing, etc. Also reject night, day, hot, cold, and other irrelevant variables -- that's smarter than current multi-variate curve fitting that has a tough time appraising what variables are likely irrelevant.

If I were going to program AI, that would be the framework I would use. I regard the learning as close to a bootstrap operation -- the first learning is very simple and crude but permits gathering more data, refining that learning, and doing more learning. To get some guesses on the details, watch various baby animals and humans as they learn.

I see no real role for math or anything I've heard of in current ML/AI, and I don't think it's much like rules in expert systems. And my guess is that the amount of memory needed is shockingly small and the basic processing, surprisingly simple.