11–20 of 28 posts
From the headline, I knew it would be about Schmidhuber. Isn't this shtick getting a little old? I don't see how he is being suppressed, when I see him give talks and lead symposiums at conferences all the time ... > The most prestigious AI conference goes by the unfortunate acronym of NIPS, or Neural Information Processing Systems. The name is likely getting changed this year.
To PNIS ?
I think AI being smarter than us in a single domain like investing is feasible. But to be smarter than us in all domains, even parenting, love, intuition, etc. sounds infinitely more challenging.
I think AI is usually thought of in terms of solving computationally-heavy or data-heavy problems. But to be "smarter than us", it would need to be better at emotional, conversational and relational problems as well.
Most software excels in a single domain: driving, flying, recording, parsing, etc. I think AI being smarter than us in a single domain like investing is feasible. But to be smarter than us in all domains, even parenting, love, intuition, etc. sounds infinitely more challenging. I think AI is usually thought of in terms of solving computationally-heavy or data-heavy problems. But to be "smarter than us", it would need…
To cut through some of the drama that risks being amplified by profiles like this, here are Schmidhuber's [1] and Goodfellow's [2] papers, plus the NIPS reviews [3] that recognized the linkage (not equivalence) between the two. This is the review process working as it should: helping situate work in a longer dialog so that readers can follow a chain of reasoning. Much of the rest of the drama discussed in this articl…
I do wish that they provided the meta-review, however, which summarizes the ultimate decision. Meta-reviews are written by area chairs, which are the final arbiters for whether or not the paper is accepted. Seeing their perspective on this paper would be very interesting.
From the headline, I knew it would be about Schmidhuber. Isn't this shtick getting a little old? I don't see how he is being suppressed, when I see him give talks and lead symposiums at conferences all the time ... > The most prestigious AI conference goes by the unfortunate acronym of NIPS, or Neural Information Processing Systems. The name is likely getting changed this year.
Schmidhuber sounds like the Nassim Nicholas Taleb of neural networks. Good ideas, complicated personality.
He gives a talk that he starts with a joke. It's a self-referential self-deprecating joke about Austrians, and it's funny! The audience laughs.
I watched that and thought to myself, "This is a formidable man."
http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/
Cf. Gödel machine http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_machine
Also, "Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overview" ("88 pages, 888 references"!)
> Abstract. In recent years, deep artificial neural networks (including recurrent ones) have won numerous contests in pattern recognition and machine learning. This historical survey compactly summarises relevant work, much of it from the previous millennium. Shallow and deep learners are distinguished by the depth of their credit assignment paths, which are chains of possibly learnable, causal links between actions and effects. I review deep supervised learning (also recapitulating the history of backpropagation), unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning & evolutionary computation, and indirect search for short programs encoding deep and large networks.
Most software excels in a single domain: driving, flying, recording, parsing, etc. I think AI being smarter than us in a single domain like investing is feasible. But to be smarter than us in all domains, even parenting, love, intuition, etc. sounds infinitely more challenging. I think AI is usually thought of in terms of solving computationally-heavy or data-heavy problems. But to be "smarter than us", it would need…
Lets use IQ as definition of intelligence, whether you agree that an IQ test is a good test for intelligence or not. I actually think it's doable to make a neural net that learns IQ tests, that will become better then the average human, then, by definition, is the "AI" more intelligent ?
The issue with this is the different meanings of intelligence, pimarily 'hard is easy' (chess, go, IQ) vs 'easy is hard' (walking, balance, seeing) test. Once AI robots can win the Champions league at football (soccer) I'll be more impressed.
Schmidhuber sounds like the Nassim Nicholas Taleb of neural networks. Good ideas, complicated personality.
I consider myself a fan of Schmidhuber. He gives a talk that he starts with a joke. It's a self-referential self-deprecating joke about Austrians, and it's funny ! The audience laughs. I watched that and thought to myself, "This is a formidable man." http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ Cf. Gödel machine http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_machine Also, "Deep Learni…
> Pronounce: You_again Shmidhoobuh
That's pretty good for a self-deprecating joke
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets use IQ as definition of intelligence, whether you agree that an IQ test is a good test for intelligence or not. I actually think it's doable to make a neural net that learns IQ tests, that will become better then the average human, then, by definition, is the "AI" more intelligent ?
> is the "AI" more intelligent? The issue with this is the different meanings of intelligence, pimarily 'hard is easy' (chess, go, IQ) vs 'easy is hard' (walking, balance, seeing) test. Once AI robots can win the Champions league at football (soccer) I'll be more impressed.