[dead]
How to build a thinking AI
31–40 of 74 posts
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked it up, the author has PhD in Brain and Cognitive Science. Are you aware of the fact that even partially implementing something like this, would require multi-year effort with dozens of engineers at minimum and will cost millions of dollars just for training.
I'm the best musician on earth but I can't play any instruments but I can imagine a really amazing song, you'll just never hear it because it would take 1000s of hours of me practicing to actually learn to play so that I could prove it. So you'll just have to make do with my words and believe me when I say I'm the best musician alive. Here's an article I wrote describing the song but without actually writing any of t…
You can go into studio with a producer and turn your ideas into a beat and then to a song. The same thing does not applies to engineering.
This is like comparing apple with an orange.
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#33“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
A brain specialist can’t code therefore his argument is invalid.
HN at its best worst.
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#34While I agree that autonomous iteration will be important to AGI, I somehow have trouble taking an author serious who presents tables as screenshot images containing red spell-checking squiggles.
This is an absolutely perfect archetypal HN comment
The way someone can post an article on a really complex topic and the comment instead talks about the style or formatting of the article.
That to me is pure HN distilled
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#35“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
The same reason Babbage never built the full Difference Engine. Design of this sort allows some tinkering unbothered by the constraints of actually building it (if you know history of the Difference Engine you know how many ideas it unleashed even if never really built to completion except in recent times for display at a London Museum :p).
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#36“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
It's the same hyperbolic nonsense we've seen from hundreds of other confident "researchers" over the past 50 years. Eliasmith has a book called "How to Build a Brain", Hawkins built an entire company, Numenta, around a theory that hasn't created anything remotely useful or interesting in almost 2 decades and has pivoted to creating tools for current ML zeitgeist methods. This unknown researcher is exactly the same. W…
This is why Open AI was so revolutionary. They were able to create a useful, simple, and free product that anyone can use to improve their life.
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#37“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
A brain specialist can’t code therefore his argument is invalid. HN at its best worst.
[deleted]
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#38“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
It's the same hyperbolic nonsense we've seen from hundreds of other confident "researchers" over the past 50 years. Eliasmith has a book called "How to Build a Brain", Hawkins built an entire company, Numenta, around a theory that hasn't created anything remotely useful or interesting in almost 2 decades and has pivoted to creating tools for current ML zeitgeist methods. This unknown researcher is exactly the same. W…
You really don't need to be so cynical, some things just need time. Light bulbs were patented only after 40 years of work by multiple researchers, and it took another half a century of work to achieve decent efficiency. Neural networks themselves have been in development for 50 years before taking off recently, and for most of that time people working in the field were considered nuts by their peers.
But if you have concrete criticism on the idea feel free to articulate.
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#39“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
A brain specialist can’t code therefore his argument is invalid. HN at its best worst.
I am skeptical of anyone making grandiose claims.
Re: How to build a thinking AI
#40“Implementing this in a machine will enable artificial general intelligence” If that’s true why didn’t he just implement it? Why should I take anyone seriously that just talks about code instead of actually coding it? This would be much more compelling if he just showed benchmarks and performance instead of writing up an argument. Furthermore, I don’t believe him.
[deleted]