211–220 of 518 posts
When machine learning stops successfully solving new problems daily, then maybe a thread like this will be warranted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for most people, the research interest in games of various sorts, is not simply a desire for a better and better game contraption, a better mousetrap. But rather the thinking is, "playing games takes intelligence, what can we learn about intelligence by building machines that play games?" Most games are also closed systems, and conveniently grokkable systems, with enumerable search spaces. Which gives us easi…
This is so true, I can't understand why people miss this. The games are just games. It's intelligence that is the goal. And comparing Alpha Go Zero against those "other chess programs that existed for 30 years" is exactly missing the point also. Those programs were not constructed with zero-knowledge. They were carefully crafted by human players to achieve the result. Are we also going to count in all the brain proce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess there are reasons why researchers build chess programs: it is easy to compare performance between algorithms. When you can solve chess, you can solve a whole class of decision-making problems. Consider it as the perfect lab.
What is that class of decision-making problems? It's nice to have a machine really good at playing chess, but it's not something I'd pay for. What decision-making problems are there, in the same class, that I'd pay for? Consider it as the perfect lab. Seems like a lab so simplified that I'm unconvinced of its general applicability. Perfect knowledge of the situation and a very limited set of valid moves at any one ti…
an awful lot of graph and optimization problems. See for instance some examples in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm
Warning 23 year old CS grad angst ridden post: I'm very sick of the AI hype train. I took a PR class for my last year of college, and they couldn't help but mention it. LG Smart TV ads mention it, Microsoft commercials, my 60 year old tech illiterate Dad. Do any end users really know what it's about? Probably not, nor should that matter, but it's very triggering to see something that was once a big part of CS turned…
I'm in same boat, except now I have to deal with both this and blockchain. It's pretty clear to everyone pushing this is being dishonest. Sometimes I wonder if they intentionally being dishonest or if they just don't know what they don't know. Very few people are doing useful true machine learning, and the applications are very specific with its own set of quirks. It's just to make some quick money and get out. What…
I worked on nudity detector in 2017. Deep learning works, and is useful. Although you are right it's very specific and quirky.
I found "How HBO's Silicon Valley built Not Hotdog" article very interesting, because it's basically the same problem. They found MobileNet better than SqueezeNet and ELU better than ReLU. You know what? We found SqueezeNet better than MobileNet and ReLU better than ELU for our problem and data. Who know why.
https://medium.com/@timanglade/how-hbos-silicon-valley-built...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can something be biased when it's listing facts? If there are 100 facts that indicate a coming AI winter, and Brin just talks up the 15 facts that indicate AI's unalloyed dominance, that's definitely biased.
First, what are said 100 facts? The article looks at fairly mundane metrics such as number of tweets or self-driving accidents... Second, I'm not quite sure that's how it works. Like in mathematics, if your lemma is X, you can give a 100 examples of X being true, but I only need a single counter-example to break it. In my opinion a single valid modern use-case of AI is enough to show that we're not in an AI winter. B…
You cannot ask a generic question, then attack the answer based on absence of evidence for a specific example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI taking over is the biggest threat facing humanity, but I don't think Hawking ever claimed it was imminent; it's likely 1000+ years away. It should be obvious why a superior intelligence is something dangerous.
"it's likely 1000+ years away." That seems like a pretty high number when you consider the exponential rate of technological advancement. 1000 years in the future is probably going to be completely unrecognizable to us given the current rate of change in society/tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you can solve chess, you can solve a whole class of decision-making problems If this were true, there would be a vast demand for grandmasters in commerce, government, the military... and there just isn’t. Poker players suffer from similar delusions about how their game can be generalised to other domains.
I think batmansmk doesn't mean "when X is good at chess, X is automatically good at lots of other things", but "the traits that make you a good chess player (given enough training) also make you good at lots of other things (given enough training)".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't speak for the other items, but these >translate over 100 languages in Google Translate; >caption over a billion videos in 10 languages on YouTube; barely even work. Yeah, it's a difficult problem but it's not even close to being solved.
YouTube captioning in English works surprisingly well, the improvement over the last few years is huge. It still chokes on proper nouns but in general it mostly works.
Every time I activate it I am in for a good laugh more than anything actually useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Deepmind hasn't shown anything breathtaking since their Alpha Go zero They went on to make AlphaZero, a generalised version that could learn chess, shogi or any similar game. The chess version beat a leading conventional chess program 28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws. That seemed impressive to me. Also they used loads of compute during the training but not so much during play.(5000 TPUs, 4TPUs). Also it got better th…
It's not like humanity really needs another chess playing program 20 years after IBM solved that problem (but now utilizing 1000x more compute power). I just find all these game playing contraptions really uninteresting. There are plenty real world problems to be solved of much higher practicality. Moravec's paradox in full glow.
We solved nothing.
IBM Deep Blue doesn't exactly think like humans do.
Most of our algorithms really are 'better brute force'.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that self-driving had/have been overhyped over the previous few years. The problem is harder than many people realize. The difference between the current AI renaissance and the past pre-winter AI ecosystems is the level of economic gain realized by the technology. The late 80s-early 90s AI winter, for example, resulted from the limitations of expert systems which were useful but only in niche markets and thei…
> The difference between the current AI renaissance and the past pre-winter AI ecosystems is the level of economic gain realized by the technology I would argue this is well discounted by level of investment made against the future. I don't think the winter depends on the amount that somebody makes today on AI, rather on how much people are expecting to make in the future. If these don't match, there will be a winter…