81–90 of 119 posts
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
Edit: especially since I think your implied claim that Sutton would actively want everyone to die seems very much unfounded.
Good time to re-read The Bitter Lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
I was there, at that moment where pattern matching for vision started to die. That was not completely lost though, learning from that time is still useful on other places today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the Turing Award is for his technical work.
Sure, and his other views - in the scope of his professional expertise but also quite relevant to, uh, other humans - seem relevant in an HN thread about the Turing award. This place isn't exactly restricted to technical discussion of the details of RL algorithms, and it's pretty fair for humans to have views on whether we ought to be replaced. It's not just one Youtube video, it's a repeatedly expressed view: https:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very disappointing. I do not understand how people earnestly defend the successionist view as a good future, but I thought he might at least give some interesting arguments. This talk isn't that. There are no substantive arguments for why we should embrace this future and his representation of the opposite side isn't in good faith either, instead he chose to present straw-man versions of them. He concludes with "A su…
> ai succession necessarily includes replacement How is AI going to make its own chips and energy? The supply chain for AI hardware is long an fragile. AGI will have an interest in maintaining peace for this reason. And why would it replace us, our thoughts are like food for AI. Our bodies are very efficient and mobile, biology will certainly be an option for AGI at some point.
Pay naive humans take care of those things while it has to, then disassemble the atoms in their human bodies into raw materials for robots/datacenters once that is no longer necessary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACM award is for their professional academic achievements - this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. It’s silly and dangerous. Because you don’t like thing A and they said/did thing A all of their lofty accomplishments get nullified by anyone. And worst of all internet gives y…
>this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. This has nothing to do with his professional life. He has made these comments in a professional capacity at an industry AI conference... The rest of your comment is a total non sequitur. >And worst of all internet gives your opinion the sa…
you mean his personal life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This depends a little bit on what the goal of AI research is. If it is (and it might well be) to build machines that excel at tasks previously thought to be exclusively reserved to, or needing to involve, the human mind, then these bitter lessons are indeed worthwhile. But if you do AI research with the idea that by teaching machines how to do X, we might also be able to gain insight in how people do X, then ever mor…
> if you do AI research with the idea that by teaching machines how to do X, we might also be able to gain insight in how people do X, then ever more complex statistical setups will be of limited information At the very least we know consistent language and vision abilities don't require lived experience. That is huge in itself, it was unexpected.
Good time to re-read The Bitter Lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
Good time to re-read The Bitter Lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
> In computer vision, there has been a similar pattern. Early methods conceived of vision as searching for edges, or generalized cylinders, or in terms of SIFT features. But today all this is discarded.Modern deep-learning neural networks use only the notions of convolution and certain kinds of invariances, and perform much better. I was there, at that moment where pattern matching for vision started to die. That was…
Best lesson for me - vowed never to be the person opposed to new approaches that work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACM award is for their professional academic achievements - this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. It’s silly and dangerous. Because you don’t like thing A and they said/did thing A all of their lofty accomplishments get nullified by anyone. And worst of all internet gives y…
>this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. This has nothing to do with his professional life. He has made these comments in a professional capacity at an industry AI conference... The rest of your comment is a total non sequitur. >And worst of all internet gives your opinion the sa…
I do agree that there is some level of inherent safety issues with such technologies - but look at atomic bomb vs fission reactors etc: history paves a way through positivity.
Just because someone had an idea that eventually turned to have some evil branch off way further from the root idea doesn't mean they started with the evil idea in the first place or worse, someone else won't.