121–130 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has seriously piqued my curiosity. Do you think Google bought the product or the team? $400M is a big chunk of change for ~3 people. Edit: peaked --> piqued, thanks to spiderPig!
piqued* my curiosity. Sorry, had to :)
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.
I recently watched the interview with Eric Schmidt on CNBC. In it they asked about the singularity (as good as any main stream finance oriented television show can). The key quote I took away from it (and sorry this is from memory) was "We've had the algorithms for AI for years, but the big difference between now, and in the past is we finally have the computer power for it". My own speculation. One of the key concep…
Where exactly would they pass classical computer? Legitimate question.
Because I've read this (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1643) today, which shows quantum computers probably will not be that much better at NP problems than classical ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or some patents.
50 people should cost ~$50 million, if it's a very strict talent acquisition, maybe $200 if they're really good. I think as well that there is some hard IP involved, or that they were close enough to a breakthrough for there to be hard IP.
Not to mention the enormous number of innovations they'll likely be able to churn out. Hopefully it's like an AI focused PARC, but with a competent tech company at the helm :-)
Is Google drunk? Thats $4B in basically two weeks on unproven companies.
The question is, what is Google going to do with all these robotics and AI companies? And please no singularity/skynet/robot uprising BS, I'm expecting more from HN than youtube level comments.
Edit: and search is an AI problem. You have a user entering a string and you have to work out what they expect to see returned.
I think there might be feedback loops in Google's current system, so maybe better AI would help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really wondering where you have to go to grad-school for someone to approve a thesis that blatantly speculative.
I skimmed it and didn't think it was that bad - it's kind of interesting to see a thesis that allows reasonably informed speculation. I don't know enough about ML to say whether the core results are actually of any value. The title is a bit much but it does say "The title of this thesis is deliberately provocative".
I remember that they had an impressive demo at the NIPS Deep Learning Workshop in December (probably a highlight for me and a few people I talked to afterwards) of a reinforcement learning agent playing Atari 2600 Games where the input consisted of an image that was fed through a Convolutional Neural Network. There is a paper on Arxiv that describes the approach ("Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning"[0]) b…
I actually read this paper a couple weeks ago as part of a deep learning reading group that I co-run. While several of these authors are household names in the RL community, this paper was not actually that impressive to me. The only real "deep" learning here is that they used a GPU library and stochastic gradient descent to perform Q-learning updates on a network with 3 large hidden layers. It was an interesting app…