Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

diginomica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#151

Post by visarga »

cjauvin wrote: post #32

To me, this debate is akin to wondering whether the essence of computing resides in the lower-level, Turing-like operations of a microprocessor or rather in the higher-level constructs and abstractions that we're able to build way "above" them. Whatever it is, intelligence, whether implemented artificially or embodied in the substrate of a living being, is likely built on a ladder of subsystems interoperating at diff…

It's like a form of incredulity that a higher level can exist on top of a lower level. It's all 0's and 1's, so it can't be anything more.

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#152

Post by roenxi »

dghughes wrote: post #115
projektfu wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropomorphizing is dangerous because it leads to metaphor that can both ascribe too much to the subject and create blind spots in the minds of researchers. Saying, for example, "Dogs want love," is fine for the owner but problematic for a researcher because love, as we understand it, is a human state. We'll never really understand what it means for a dog to feel loved. To the ethologist that is not to say that the…

Or people who say "The computer thinks...". No it's a machine that only does what people make it do.

We've seen that threshold crossed with neural agents like AlphaGo which can be reasonably described as thinking. It decides if moves are good or bad after a little pause for processing, its decisions improve with time, it has an opinion on the state of play, the opinion is formed using basically the same data as a human, different iterations of the neural network can have a different opinion but there is a link between it and the previous one.

I don't see a test that majorly distinguishes it from a human. It appears to be following the same process with a few tweaks around the edges. There are some exceptions in the 2-5 situations in Go where a human can actually use optimised logic to determine what will happen; but they aren't the meat of the game.

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#154

Post by cs702 »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #124
cs702 wrote: post #103

This article conflates two separate, very different issues into one: * Issue #1: There is a tremendous amount of hype, noise, and snake oil surrounding the moniker "AI." Pretty much everyone agrees with this statement. (And anyone who doesn't agree with it... is probably selling snake oil.) * Issue #2: Is intelligence just a form of "curve fitting," i.e., is it just finding solutions to very complicated, high-dimensi…

If we're adding weight to Rich Sutton with that last sentence, can we also mention that Pearl is a highly decorated and distinguished researcher, author, and professor in the field? Because it seems odd to call him "OP" when his work has shaped the field of machine learning as much as it has to this very day.

Judea Pearl is NOT the author of the piece.

The author is someone called Kurt Mako.

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#155

Post by jtloong »

cs702 wrote: post #154
TheRealPomax wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're adding weight to Rich Sutton with that last sentence, can we also mention that Pearl is a highly decorated and distinguished researcher, author, and professor in the field? Because it seems odd to call him "OP" when his work has shaped the field of machine learning as much as it has to this very day.

Judea Pearl is NOT the author of the piece. The author is someone called Kurt Mako.

True but most of the content of the article is based around Pearl's thoughts on the field.

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#156

Post by sgt101 »

voidmain wrote: post #127
sgt101 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are no formal arguments against Church–Turing thesis. do you mean "all computation that can be done, can be done using a Turing machine"? Or do you mean "no one has proven Church Turing wrong?" If it's the second - yes, that's so. But so what? If it's the first then many people in Quantum Computing community will be quite upset, P=BQP? You have proof?

P=BPP would contradict the extended Church-Turing thesis. Quantum computers can definitely be simulated by classical ones (with an exponential slowdown) so the CTT, which says nothing about performance, is not threatened by them.

The life time of the universe and the physical extent of possible classical computers limits "all the computing that can be done" quite strongly. Especially with regard to intelligence - where the physical and temporal extent of brains are clear.

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#159

Post by projektfu »

ecorithm wrote: post #140
projektfu wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropomorphizing is dangerous because it leads to metaphor that can both ascribe too much to the subject and create blind spots in the minds of researchers. Saying, for example, "Dogs want love," is fine for the owner but problematic for a researcher because love, as we understand it, is a human state. We'll never really understand what it means for a dog to feel loved. To the ethologist that is not to say that the…

You should go and read some stuff written by ethologists. Basically everything you said would be vehemently disagreed with by a large group of prominent ethologist. The term anthropodenial has even been coined to criticize your exact thinking and to describe the dangers of not anthropomorphizing enough. Not saying you can't over do it, but the GP's comment is much more in line with thinking by modern ethologist. Fran…

Ok things may have changed since I studied ethology

Re: AI is mostly about curve fitting (2018)

#160

Post by ecorithm »

projektfu wrote: post #159
ecorithm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should go and read some stuff written by ethologists. Basically everything you said would be vehemently disagreed with by a large group of prominent ethologist. The term anthropodenial has even been coined to criticize your exact thinking and to describe the dangers of not anthropomorphizing enough. Not saying you can't over do it, but the GP's comment is much more in line with thinking by modern ethologist. Fran…

Ok things may have changed since I studied ethology

Right, to be fair to you this was a hotly debated topic in ethology (and still is to an extent), however I would say most modern ethologist have come out on the side of embracing evolutionary parsimony and viewing our human experience as a valuable asset to understanding animals (especially mammals).

Probably the most cited paper regarding this debate is by Marc Bekoff, "Cognitive Ethology: Slayers, Skeptics, and Proponents" (http://cogprints.org/160/1/199709005.html). Your original comment would be categorized as a "slayer" a position which is widely criticized. In fact Bekoff's focus is on canines and he used your exact example with dogs, but to opposite affect.

Post reply on HN