211–216 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brain needs to form structure before any sort of reinforcement learning is even possible. This structure comes from an "unsupervised" process we don't understand well.
Isn't it from millions year of natural selection? The reason why a human brain can think, is just by chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it from millions year of natural selection? The reason why a human brain can think, is just by chance.
As much as it doesn't help to call it intelligent design, chance is not any good either, if asking for a reason. Random chance is as good as no reason at all.
Preface: AlphaGo is an amazing achievement and does show an interesting advancement in the field. Yet ... it really doesn't mean almost anything that people are predicting it to mean. Slashdot went so far as to say that "We know now that we don't need any big new breakthroughs to get to true AI". The field of ML/AI is in a fight where people want more science fiction than scientific reality. Science fiction is sexy,…
Stunningly big, or stunningly small?
The CPUs would cost around $65/hour on Google Cloud. I can't immediately find pricing for GPUs on either Amazon or Google, but let's suppose it doubles that price.
It's pretty small potatoes.
Especially if you put it in the context of a project with ~15 researchers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as it doesn't help to call it intelligent design, chance is not any good either, if asking for a reason. Random chance is as good as no reason at all.
Mixing natural selection and intelligent design is a problem, but that's not a problem for natural selection.
Natural selection is not pure chance. At least seeing it that way doesn't yield anything except maybe lowered expectations. You want some expectations.
Hiding you theory behind Nature is not any less religious. Nature is pretty much synonym with living things, existence in general, and actually stems from to be born. Nature as the reason for things being born is thus kind of true by definition. The rational behind the generational evolution is the exact opposite of pure chance, though. Chance is only applicable if there are two possible outcomes. In hindsight, only one outcome was possible, so there are no chances, just facts.
The argument I am getting at is, self similarity seems to be such a common property, that it's maybe inevitable somewhere in a complex system. From there to self awareness and critical thinking is a long way to go, but what you call millions of years is a blink of an eye on a cosmological scale.
The idea of complexity includes enough variety to appear random to us, so we might agree that it's just a difficult to express concept and this is only semantic quibbling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't think empathy is an appropriate word for this. It is defined as the ability to share the feelings of others. While in this case, what you want the robots to know is what most people would call 'common sense'.
What a strange response. You read that as me comparing human capabilities to roomba's? The point, which you couldn't have missed more blatantly, is that one doesn't need to program every conceivable situation into an automaton for it to be able to behave properly in a whole range of normal situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't want to create a list of rules for every conceivable situation, the AI will need to have some understanding human emotions and desires My roomba does a good job vacuuming around table legs. Also sofa legs. Also stationary human legs. Also lamps. Also random poles sticking out of the floor. I imagine it would even do a good job vacuuming around a stalactite that made it to the floor. Are you saying someon…
There is a common situation that a Roomba does horribly at, toys on the floor that a person would just pick up or move before vacuuming. Also, Roombas don't have any capacity to learn. They are just executing their bump and clean algorithm (except for the newest one which actually maps out rooms).