What Google DeepMind Means for A.I. • Hacker News Board

Re: What Google DeepMind Means for A.I.

#91

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

zep15 wrote: post #43

wutbrodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (there's no reasoning going on in the DeepMind work, just statistical correlation) I've seen 100 people make this statement and mean 100 different things, so I just wanted to clarify: How are you defining "reasoning" here as distinct from statistical correlation?

Reasoning means things like this: suppose you are holding a ball and want to make it drop. A rule of inference tells you that if you release it, it will drop. You can then reason out that you should release it. Sure, the rule of inference may have ultimately been derived from experience, by a process which in some sense involved statistical correlation. But you have to distinguish that ultimate basis for the inferenc…

Right, inference is essential to any attempt to build an intelligence and DeepMind in particular doesn't do inference (AFAIK). I just wanted to clarify what the parent commenter was saying; I work in the field, and in conversations around AI, I very often hear "reasoning" used as an ill-defined, unattainable (for machines) _je ne sais quoi_ that's used to prognosticate about the potential for AI in general. Being specific about what one means by "reasoning" (in this context, inference) is useful for removing those kinds of useless, unmoored-from-logic[1] perspectives from a conversation.

[1] To be clear, I'm not dismissing a viewpoint that I think is wrong as "unmoored from logic", I'm specifically talking about the very common situation where people confidently assert this with no attempt (and no ability) to back it up in any way other than confidence that intelligence is simply natural and non-biological entities can never get arbitrarily close.

Re: What Google DeepMind Means for A.I.

#92

Post by mercer » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 10:47 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #83

mjrpes wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sentences like this are kind of the New Yorker's erudite (you could argue pretentious) style. It works better on the the printed page than on the web. If you read the New Yorker often enough your mind gets used to it and it isn't too much of a bother. Granted, this sentence would have been better off with a period in there somewhere.... it's a bit overkill.

The problem is that, in this case, "erudite" means "directly serializing the writer's complex and nuanced thoughts without being able to serialize the writer's previous context that allowed him/her to hold all those thoughts in a single structure." We tend to break things down further when trying to communicate because we no longer assume a precise educational background common to All Educated People, but instead a d…

I'd argue that you just described the point where 'erudite' becomes 'pretentious'.

I'm a voracious reader and a huge fan of 'unusual' words, for some reason (perhaps because I learned English through books).My general approach to language is sometimes judged to be 'pretentious' or at least 'bookish' by people who don't know me well. Once they do, though, they realize that I just love playing with words and language.

While I don't shy away from using words that aren't too common, I always try to make sure to avoid needless complications, and I regularly rewrite sentences to make them easier to understand (while still using 'big' words because I just like them, or they best describe what I'm trying to convey).

The New Yorker often seems to cross the line between enjoying the richness of the English language and deliberately overcomplicating things. I don't really understand why, unless the goal is to be pretentious.

Re: What Google DeepMind Means for A.I.

#93

Post by musername » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 4:51 AM UTC

throwawaymsft wrote: post #27

[deleted] wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I think the insight with DeepMind is that it's built on layers upon layers. There might be a "manager" algorithm that is taking input from your memories, another from your mood, and a "manager of managers", and so on. A photo evokes a deeper meaning than is contained within the individual pixels. Similarly, I think the right algorithm may be able to extract more intelligent behavior from a larger set of myopic probab…

The impression of a photo is taken from context, a photo isn't a closed system. That implies a larger set of probability functions, sure, some of it from genetic evolution, some from the evolution of thoughts. Reason draws from its intelligence from emotion, ie. emotional intelligence, though. There's convolution of primary senses, finely tuned, highly developed mechanisms and chemical reactions that motivate the strategic management you mentioned.

In that sense, what we percieve as intelligent often enough is the abillity to do more with less, ie. compression of information. Therefore, one goal is to keep the probability functions few. What happens with ML is just that, it uses much less layers and neurons for context then the brain, but makes up for it in raw speed.

To add to my wild musings from before, the tell in intel might be related to to tell which used to mean to count. Compare that with german erzaehlen and zaehlen. Same for to reckon, cognate with german rechnen (calculate).

Re: What Google DeepMind Means for A.I.

#94

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 11:30 AM UTC

mercer wrote: post #92

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, in this case, "erudite" means "directly serializing the writer's complex and nuanced thoughts without being able to serialize the writer's previous context that allowed him/her to hold all those thoughts in a single structure." We tend to break things down further when trying to communicate because we no longer assume a precise educational background common to All Educated People, but instead a d…

I'd argue that you just described the point where 'erudite' becomes 'pretentious'. I'm a voracious reader and a huge fan of 'unusual' words, for some reason (perhaps because I learned English through books).My general approach to language is sometimes judged to be 'pretentious' or at least 'bookish' by people who don't know me well. Once they do, though, they realize that I just love playing with words and language.…

I actually write a lot like that if I'm not deliberately trying to be clear and simple. I imagine the New Yorker's journalists have the same problem, but aren't trying to solve it.