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

Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#61

Post by Tenobrus »

iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

What you've described for unsupervised learning is really closer to reinforcement learning, where you get rewards without any information. True unsupervised learning is more like "figure out the clusters of these n-dimensional vectors".

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#62

Post by felippee »

eanzenberg wrote: post #54
felippee wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that by the age you reach school you already know amazing wealth of knowledge about the world and how it works, particularly the kind of commonsense knowledge that AI has always had enormous trouble to acquire. See Moravec's paradox.

5 year olds "know amazing wealth of knowledge about the world and how it works"?? Que? How many 5 year olds do you know or interact with?

Your statement is exactly the incarnation of Moravec's paradox. You don't see the amazing things that a 5yr old (even a 2yr old) can do, exactly because these things are completely obvious to us. They become much less obvious once you want your robot to be able to do these same things. At that point these things become horribly difficult.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#63

Post by 52-6F-62 »

kobeya wrote: post #20
52-6F-62 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Mr Hinton was somewhat vague and brief in his statements here, though. What do you think the crisis point is that he's reached exactly? (It must be sure enough for the man who introduced the paradigm in the first place to have caught on, yet the change of thought process unclear enough for him to recognize that it will be somebody newer who will have to introduce something else)

I think his quote is out of context. If he is saying that back propagation networks alone are insufficient for AGI, that is neither surprising nor controversial. Hinton has never been working on the AGI problem. It sounds more like the author is making use of the quotes he/she got from Hinton in the most clickbaity way possible.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think he was speaking explicitly about AGI. To me it didn't sound like they were leaving the applied problems he has worked on. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models and he's suggesting here that rather than continue with the models that have had success up to this point, it would be more worth the energy to start again at a lower level, rethinking the problem, in order to achieve similar results unsupervised.

This may be where my limited knowledge is my handicap, but I didn't think you would need an AGI in order to achieve unsupervised learning. There would still be an input and an output as there is now -- but instead of massive datasets used in training the models could simple experience the problem in real time, adjusting and learning based upon new results. Of course unsupervised learning models could contribute greatly to the pursuit of AGI, but I didn't think AGI predicate unsupervised learning models (which is what I am taking from the article -- or more like article abstract -- here).

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#64

Post by tree_of_item »

phkahler wrote: post #60
iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

>> Most of the time for biological intelligence there isn't an oracle describing the truth at every moment of life to judge actions/decisions against. Is it possible that your conscious self is the oracle that provides feedback to subconscious networks?

No, why would "your conscious self" know any of the answers? The problems biological organisms face aren't even well defined enough to have "answers" generally.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#65

Post by mistercow »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #58
zardo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The big difference this time is that the ceiling with machine learning is high enough for large-scale profitable applications. That wasn't the case with the previous rounds. My company (fortune 500) depends on expert systems, some even date back to the 80's AI boom. Doing what we do, at the scale we do it, would simply not be possible without them. Lots of companies make a lot of money with expert systems, but they…

> Lots of companies make a lot of money with expert systems, but they have no incentive to fund AI research since expert systems have hit a clear capability ceiling. I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. Is the suggestion that AI cannot do better than expert systems?

I think the point is that just because companies are making money off of AI advances, that doesn't necessarily mean we won't hit another AI winter once we hit a ceiling with current techniques.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#66

Post by felippee »

eanzenberg wrote: post #50
iandanforth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we go with 'incomplete' rather than 'false'? :) One of the most interesting areas of study for me is early childhood motor learning which is a fascinating combination of unsupervised, reinforced, and imitation learning. There are even significant intrinsic knowledge (instinctual/reflexive/morphological) effects. Also I really like to encompass non-human learning when talking about this stuff to remind myself of a…

Please describe what "unsupervised learning" a child may be doing.

Learning to crawl. Learning to perceive depth. Learning to walk. Learning to pick objects. Learning to hold balance. Learning to hold balance while picking an object. Learning to handle liquids (such as food or drink). Learning to avoid dangerous situations. Learning to ride on a bike. Learning to see. Learning to interact with other agents. And so on and so on.

The list is almost endless. In all of those cases, if there is any supervision it is minimal.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#67

Post by 52-6F-62 »

tw1010 wrote: post #14
52-6F-62 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's likely true that there are other ways to approach the problem, we're yet unsure of how to get there. The existing biological model has as least proven itself to work to some level, at least insofar as Descartes has lead us to believe.

I would bet a lot of money that engineers testing model after model in a state of flow, without any concern for biological validity, will yield a better result than any biologically inspired thing will. Time efficiency is also an important factor here. The model that will win is the one that is first to "market" (academic paper).

Can't say I'm disagreeing with you. In fact, I'm not. To illustrate, I think it is far more likely we'll have "Jarvis" before we are building our own analogues of the human brain (or better).

I do want it to happen, though. And I think it will, in spite of whatever model wins. It's just too interesting a problem. How that takes shape, I can't dream of predicting. (eg. How soon will or understanding of the use of organics in computing advance to such a level)

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#68

Post by aivijay »

dnautics wrote: post #19
Eridrus wrote: post #4

Obviously a clickbait headline, few people think current tech will lead to AGI, but while we all wait on a new breakthrough in AI, we can build much more impressive systems with what we have now than even a few years ago. I went to a talk from people who had built more scalable training algorithms for Restricted Boltzmann Mahcines (which Hinton was a pioneer in) a few months ago and asked them why they had chosen to…

I don't think that's correct. There are a lot of people who should know better that think that the current ml technology will lead to agi.

Just ML is never going to lead to an AGI. There are lots of other things that need to be first understood about intelligence, common sense reasoning, cognition and other things which we don't have a clue of (though some think they know it all), to build an AGI.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#69

Post by zardo »

eanzenberg wrote: post #54
felippee wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that by the age you reach school you already know amazing wealth of knowledge about the world and how it works, particularly the kind of commonsense knowledge that AI has always had enormous trouble to acquire. See Moravec's paradox.

5 year olds "know amazing wealth of knowledge about the world and how it works"?? Que? How many 5 year olds do you know or interact with?

How many robots have you interacted with?

5-year old humans have picked up a lot. For instance, I knew about the dangers that hot surfaces, sharp objects, angry cats, and big sisters represented.

I had learned to walk, run, swim, ride a bicycle, and catch a ball.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#70

Post by throwaway613834 »

mistercow wrote: post #65
throwaway613834 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of companies make a lot of money with expert systems, but they have no incentive to fund AI research since expert systems have hit a clear capability ceiling. I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. Is the suggestion that AI cannot do better than expert systems?

I think the point is that just because companies are making money off of AI advances, that doesn't necessarily mean we won't hit another AI winter once we hit a ceiling with current techniques.

Okay but what's the relevance of expert systems to this argument?
Post reply on HN