Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically yes, most often it's about stacking more layers in neural networks, making them "deep". However, there is some merit to the new hype since stacking more layers worked way better than anyone previously working with neural networks and ML thought it would. But in theory you could generalize deep learning to other methods than neural networks, it's basically about creating way more complex models than those…
> it's basically about creating way more complex models than those used in previous research and feeding them lots of data Those are instructions for over-fitting. Deep learning neural networks escape from this problem somehow, but it's not a given that other models would escape it too.
What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
111–116 of 116 posts
Re: What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should technology continue to feed you though? Maybe it's more efficient to let you starve. This isn't a theoretical, what-would-a-currently-uninvented-AI-decide-to-do kind of question. Just look at what corporations do now. It's all about dollars and cents. Non-human entities don't care about what's right for humans. Even ones that are mostly composed of humans.
> Why should technology continue to feed you though? I think this comes from current thinking based on past history where we were more resource constrained, embodied by this: "In the rest of society, however, we often both try to hire people who seem to show off the highest related abilities, and we let those most prestigious people have a lot of discretion in how the job is structured. For example, we let the most p…
Re: What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
#113Projects like DeepBlue and AlphaGo are not fundamental innovation nor research, they are just PR stunts that show the expertise of the company making them. TBH, winning a game of chess or go has little value in itself, except for the limited market of selling chess or go software. The reason they are doing that is mostly for publicity. IBM makes computers, and they show how good they are at it by having one beat top…
It'd only be innovative if they'd discovered a general approach that applies to many problems without tweaking, and even better if it learned from a comparable size problem set as humans do. As it is, even something as generic as AlphaGo Zero is highly customized for the particular problem domain, and requires millions of games.
AGZ probably can be retrained to other board games, but the hardware cost to train is quite expensive. The estimated cost to train AGZ (for 40 days?) was $25M.
Re: What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd only be innovative if they'd discovered a general approach that applies to many problems without tweaking, and even better if it learned from a comparable size problem set as humans do. As it is, even something as generic as AlphaGo Zero is highly customized for the particular problem domain, and requires millions of games.
The improvements from AlphaGo -> AG Master -> AG Zero is by adding more generalization techniques and rely less on human intervention/data. AlphaGo Zero learns only from self training. AGZ probably can be retrained to other board games, but the hardware cost to train is quite expensive. The estimated cost to train AGZ (for 40 days?) was $25M.
Re: What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not sure the government should be involved. Not because basic research ain't great---in an ideal world we'd all get ponies from the government---but because budgets are finite and there are other opportunities some of them with more definite benefits. Budgets are finite, but currently, the state leaves both money and economic legibility on the table. The simple system should be: if you build and commercialize techno…
How about the government just taxes all income at some appropriate rate?
Re: What AlphaGo Zero teaches us about what’s going wrong with innovation
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should technology continue to feed you though? I think this comes from current thinking based on past history where we were more resource constrained, embodied by this: "In the rest of society, however, we often both try to hire people who seem to show off the highest related abilities, and we let those most prestigious people have a lot of discretion in how the job is structured. For example, we let the most p…
Lacking UBI, scientists are forced to pick research topics that are only barely related because that's where the money is. (Eg grant proposals for million-nanometer sized machines when nano-machines were a hot research subject). How is letting scientists research subjects they're actually interested in, instead of seeking funding from industry any worse for the progress of science? Science research frequently has zer…
Let's ignore any influence industry already may exert on any grant funding.
Because in some fields, at best, industry is behind what's being worked on in academia. In the mid 60's when arpanet was being developed, I wonder what the industry/market would have been asking for instead? Probably some minor extension of something they already seen before…
Being beholden to industry can be a blessing for some (just like the grant hamster wheel is for others), but for others it could just be another set of relatively arbitrary constraints in the scheme of figuring out the theoretical.
Here's a list of research in mathematics that in some shape or form, was considered to have zero commercial application[0]. Im sure you can find analogues in many sectors.
[0] https://mathoverflow.net/questions/116627/useless-math-that-...,