Live data from Hacker News

Researchers: Are we on the cusp of an ‘AI winter’?

bbc.co.uk

121–123 of 123 posts

Re: Researchers: Are we on the cusp of an ‘AI winter’?

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. You said "generalizing from a partial sample of the problem space" and I thought you meant generalisation to unseen data from few examples, which is generally what we would all like to get from machine learnig models (but don't). But, if a neural net can't _extrapolate_ to unseen instances, I don't see how it can solve problems like the one you describe with any useful precision, a…

To be clear - I have absolutely no experience in this domain. I'm just speculating. In the example I gave, everyone agrees that if you had long enough and enough processing power, you could solve every possible configuration, and store the results. Then you could instantaneously "solve" any problem. Unfortunately, the problem I describe is a toy problem (too simple to be useful), and yet it would still take way way t…

>> So the real question is what density you need to pre-solve the configuration space to make it work?

Yes, that's the main question. I don't know the answer of course but if we're talking about an engineering problem where precision is required, intuitively the more the merrier.

The thing is, with neural nets you can do lots of things in principle and many things "in the lab". When you try to take them in the real world is the tricky bit. Anyway, another poster here is saying we'll see big things in the next five years so let's hold on to our hats for now.

Re: Researchers: Are we on the cusp of an ‘AI winter’?

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical of the claim that it's easier to train a neural net than to hand-code a set of heuristics _when the heuristics are already known_. For the time being, optimal results with neural nets need more data and more computing power ("more" because it's never enough) and are primarily useful when a hand-coded solution is not possible. I also don't understand how it is possible for a neural net (or any approximat…

Well, there are pretty convincing examples in other domains: try hardcoding rules to classify animals or objects in photos, especially an algorithm which can handle thousands of different categories. Totally impractical - but if we appropriately design the net and structure the training data, you can train a pretty accurate net on a mid-range GPU in a matter of hours to do what would take far, far longer to hardcode!…

I think I understand what you meant by heuristics. I agree that it's impractical to try and hand-code image recognition rules and all attempts to do that in the past have failed as they have in similarly complex domains (like machine translation, say). My concern is particularly about the use of neural networks (or in general machine learning models that learn to approximate a function) in domains where precision is normally required, like engineering. I mean, I know there's plenty of approximation in engineering already but of course we're not talking about computing integrals here (er, I think?).

Anyway I was especially trying to understand the OP's comment about speedup using a neural network. I'm still a bit confused about that. But thanks for the conversation.

Re: Researchers: Are we on the cusp of an ‘AI winter’?

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Street View is full of artifacts, it's not even close to being accurate. The same goes for satellite imagery of rugged mountains. I'm not even mentioning the vegetation, snow cover, river levels, etc.

Accuracy is relative to the need. By accurate I mean accurate enough that we can extract actionable information from it. For power plant critical structures we want 0.5mm, updated every 6months. For forest management we want 5m, updated every 2 years. But this increase in spatial and temporal accuracy will keep on going. At some point in the future a small swarm of insect-sized drones will be able to capture a whole…

Well, you just redefined accurate to "accurate enough that we can extract actionable information from it". Your statement is true now.

BTW, I never say never.

Post reply on HN