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

DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 312 posts

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#81

Post by rocgf »

for_i_in_range wrote: post #74
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bet a sum of real money that Some Bozo is correct. Bozo has the hindsight of history and philosophy going for him, while Deep Mind has a huge financial temptation to sell snake oil.

“Show me the incentives I’ll show you the outcome.” Google make money, Google Bad. Deep Mind owned by Google, Deep Mind bad! The above conclusion stands trite. Perhaps the inverse is true. Google and Deep Mind, if correct, could be hurting themselves more than helping themselves. Why? Creating a future species who’s too smart to click on ads, and too smart to remain subject to its whims, doesn’t sound like it’d be go…

No offence, but I think you are extremely wrong.

Creating an AGI is the endgame for everything. Who cares about ads when you have an AI that can learn to do anything and improve upon itself continuously?

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#82

Post by ifdefdebug »

29athrowaway wrote: post #60
Animats wrote: post #48

"A sufficiently powerful and general reinforcement learning agent may ultimately give rise to intelligence and its associated abilities. ... We do not offer any theoretical guarantee on the sample efficiency of reinforcement learning agents." OK. This basically says "evolution works". But how fast? Biology took tens of millions of years to boot up. An related question is how much compute power does evolution, viewed…

We just want AI to be able to think. We do not need an AI with an autonomic nervous system, or many of the functions in the central nervous system. We do not need AI to be very power efficient. If it takes several megawatts of electricity to get our first strong AI working, so be it. So, we do not have as many constrains as life did.

Define "think". And then prove it can be done without the kind of nervous system you say we don't need.

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#83

Post by chrisco255 »

A-Train wrote: post #76
rusk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: sorry just realised you’re making the same point as me more or less. Putting yourself in third person. I’ll let my comment stand anyhow :) Screwing my face up, looking at this sideways … but it seems as though you’re saying that the Bozos of HN have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion based on … [rereads] … their lack of academic credentials in the area… you could say this about just about any HN po…

The algorithms to train, initialize the networks, new architectures are far more important than the hardware advances. If people knew how to train NNs 50 years ago we would live in a different world.

We did. they just didn't have the same computation abilities back then.

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#84

Post by jjjdjjddddsfsd »

webmaven wrote: post #40
jjjdjjddddsfsd wrote: post #25

Are the just reformulating the principles of evolution in digital terms, and essentially not providing any new insights at all? Yes, intelligence has been created by evolution. That doesn't imply that any system that is subject to evolutionary forces will lead to the creation of intelligence (and not within a reasonable timeframe, either). The challenge is to create a system that is capable of evolving intelligence.…

> Afaik some biologists even think that the evolution of intelligence was rather unlikely and would not necessarily happen again under the same circumstances as on earth. Hmm. Can you provide a pointer to those biologists? AFAIK, high intelligence has arisen more than once on Earth (Hominoids, Cetaceans, Octopuses), so I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim, but perhaps they're construing intelligence more narrowly (ie…

Jared Diamond talks about it in his books (don't remember which ones specifically). OK, granted, he is not officially a biologist, I guess, but at least a prominent writer on Evolution Theory.

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#85

Post by for_i_in_range »

rocgf wrote: post #81
for_i_in_range wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Show me the incentives I’ll show you the outcome.” Google make money, Google Bad. Deep Mind owned by Google, Deep Mind bad! The above conclusion stands trite. Perhaps the inverse is true. Google and Deep Mind, if correct, could be hurting themselves more than helping themselves. Why? Creating a future species who’s too smart to click on ads, and too smart to remain subject to its whims, doesn’t sound like it’d be go…

No offence, but I think you are extremely wrong. Creating an AGI is the endgame for everything. Who cares about ads when you have an AI that can learn to do anything and improve upon itself continuously?

“Who cares?” Well, the people who need to pay the people developing the endgame for everything you speak of.

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#86

Post by croon »

rocgf wrote: post #81
for_i_in_range wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Show me the incentives I’ll show you the outcome.” Google make money, Google Bad. Deep Mind owned by Google, Deep Mind bad! The above conclusion stands trite. Perhaps the inverse is true. Google and Deep Mind, if correct, could be hurting themselves more than helping themselves. Why? Creating a future species who’s too smart to click on ads, and too smart to remain subject to its whims, doesn’t sound like it’d be go…

No offence, but I think you are extremely wrong. Creating an AGI is the endgame for everything. Who cares about ads when you have an AI that can learn to do anything and improve upon itself continuously?

You don't know if an AGI will agree with your profit motives.

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#87

Post by [deleted] »

webmaven wrote: post #3

Saying RL is sufficient to (eventually) achieve AGI is a bit misleading. One might similarly state that biological evolution is sufficient to (eventually) achieve biological general intelligence. Both statements are probably true, but the parenthetical (eventually) is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

[deleted]

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#88

Post by gammalost »

anyfoo wrote: post #73
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that the universe can be simulated by a Turing machine is a strong and weird claim that needs to be defended, not the other way around. We know that Turing machines are very limited things and that the computational processes they carry out also very limited in applicability. What's the evidence that the universe is more limited that a Turing machine? Just the fact that we can imagine things that can't be co…

> We know that Turing machines are very limited things and that the computational processes they carry out also very limited in applicability. Again, source? Do you know of anything that is able to perform a computation that a Turing machine cannot? > Just the fact that we can imagine things that can't be computed by a Turing machine should clue you in that it's probably otherwise. Like what? Uncomputable numbers lik…

>Like what?

The halting problem is (I think?) the standard example.

Here's a short video on it https://youtu.be/macM_MtS_w4

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#89

Post by leto_ii »

azinman2 wrote: post #16

Everything old is new again. As far as I can tell, they're not actually proposing how to achieve this. I can't access the article without a host institution it seems (is there another link?), so I only have the article to go by. RL has been the basis for all robots engaging with the world, and that engagement with the physical world modeled using RL has been promised to make robots that can act like a 2 year old for…

> is there another link?

This is the download link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437022...

Re: DeepMind says reinforcement learning is ‘enough’ to reach general AI

#90

Post by FlyingSaucer »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #78
rich_sasha wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Deep Mind a “booming business”? They are achieving great things academically, but their business successes are either kept secret or mostly absent. All I know about is the Google data centre cooling scheduling, probably a big saving for Google but hardly an achievement that in its own professes their business success.

Deep Mind is cutting edge ML in general, right? Doesn't Google actively apply the lessons learned all over the place? YouTube content recommendation stands out to me in particular. Translation and automated closed captioning are also obviously ML based. I'd guess that most of the really interesting stuff would be behind the scenes and not immediately visible to end users though.

Yes, its hard to tell the exact algorithmic underpinnings of production models that Google uses but you have to assume that although they have some done some impressive strides in fields that isn't immediately profitable (AlphaGo, AlphaFold...) they also continuously push new research in things that are obviously of interest for Google and Alphabet- especially in text-to-speech, speech-to-text, information-retrieval etc.

For reference : https://deepmind.com/research

Post reply on HN