71–80 of 209 posts
So Deepmind $400M but Snapchat $4Billion? So Google thinks Snapchat is more important?
Not more important, more profitable. DeepMind is an investment, SnapChat is a revenue raiser. And a big ball of users to foist G+ on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a nice c.v., but he definitely wrote his own wikipedia article.
I'm usually skeptical of these kinds of vanity articles (and seeing many more lately), but this one kind of checks out [1]. It's got edits by many different IP addresses and handles stretching across nine years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demis_Hassabis&dir...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the objective of those like Kurzweil. What do they see as the benefit of the singularity? Wouldn't a drastically more advanced intelligence just dwarf and dissolve any lesser intelligence that tried to meld with it? It would be complete ego death.
you want humanity to be the terminal phase of sentience in the galaxy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that Google has now gone full Singularist. They jumped the shark when they hired Kurzweil.
I don't really understand the objective of those like Kurzweil. What do they see as the benefit of the singularity? Wouldn't a drastically more advanced intelligence just dwarf and dissolve any lesser intelligence that tried to meld with it? It would be complete ego death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the objective of those like Kurzweil. What do they see as the benefit of the singularity? Wouldn't a drastically more advanced intelligence just dwarf and dissolve any lesser intelligence that tried to meld with it? It would be complete ego death.
The idea is to build a "friendly AI" which doesn't dissolve us.
$400M for a company I've never heard before is quite surprising. Could someone who participates in the machine learning community share any insights or facts they have on the company? Other than the founders' histories, the article doesn't do much justice to the pricetag.
Ohhh, did Google buy them? Or did the AI figure that the best place to launch world domination from was inside Google so it forged a letter from Larry and Sergey offering to acquire the company? :-)
So, Google's list so far: - Some top ML talent: Geoffrey Hinton, Sebastian Thrun, Peter Norvig, Jeff Dean, Andrew Ng. - One of D-Wave's quantum computers to establish their 'Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab'. - Creepy robot maker Boston Dynamics. - A stack of other robotics companies: Schaft.inc, Industrial Perception, Redwood Robotics, Meka Robotics, Molomni, Bot & Dolly, Autofuss. - DeepMind, obviously. Am I mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is to build a "friendly AI" which doesn't dissolve us.
Does that mean that having "our way" overrides what AI knows is in the best interest of the planet and humanity? Will this AI just lend itself to be used in harmful ways by dubious and invariably less intelligent people?
I'd put it in the same ball park as "what would that grurple (kind of a greenish purple) colour look like if we removed blue from it?". Sure you could say orange but the nature of grurple is undefined enough that it would be really hard to conclude that you're right.