8 ms·
Theses "ideas" sound like either they were written by a 14 year old kid or someone very high. I was hoping for real science. Yes I know my comment is probably
by jcoffland 10y ago
Theses "ideas" sound like either they were written by a 14 year old kid or someone very high. I was hoping for real science.
Yes I know my comment is probably against HN guidelines but there ought to be an exception for making fun of uber rich Silicon Valley types. They parody themselves. It reminds me a lot of the show Silicon Valley.
- ericjang 10y agocare to elaborate why this isn't "real science"?
- jcoffland 10y agoIt's real science fiction. None of these problems are even close to being practical except in the fantasy world created by pop-sci news outlets. I was hoping for a serious discussion about the problems on the forefront of machine learning.
- superswordfish 10y agoWell that's why they're courting not just experts, but "strong experts" of machine learning, whatever that means :P
- jcoffland 10y agoIt must be experts who have worked out in the OpenAI Gym. Apparently by playing video games. https://gym.openai.com/ https://gym.openai.com/
- Darmani 10y agoDARPA's already put 10s of millions into #3. What do you know that they and their teams don't? https://cgc.darpa.mil/ https://cgc.darpa.mil/
- jcoffland 10y agoYou mean the government wastes money? edit: The DARPA site you linked above calls it a "fully automated computer security challenge". They are not claiming it's AI.
- nl 10y agoYou mean the government wastes money? That's a ignorant cheap shot. Speculative, risky research is costly because lots of things don't work. The DARPA site you linked above calls it a "fully automated computer security challenge". They are not claiming it's AI. Show me a definition of AI that would include papers published at NIPS/ICML or even AAAI and wouldn't include the same techniques as are used in the DARPA Grand Challenge. AI is just a label, it isn't something magical.
- Darmani 10y agoThat's actually quite easy to do. The techniques used by the AI community (statistical estimation, numerical optimization, etc) are quite different from the techniques used to do things like the Cyber Grand Challenge (heavy use of SAT and other decision procedures for logical theories, lattice-based program analysis, formal notions of program semantics, etc). If you ask an AI researcher how knowledge of omega-complete partial orders can help automatically win programming contests, you'll get a blank look. I'm actually kinda miffed that OpenAI's press release seems to think automatically writing/exploiting programs is an AI problem, and targeted the AI community in their proposals (as opposed to the programming languages community). I'm a program synthesis researcher, and know how to do major aspects of #2 and #3. I know a lot of people who are already working on them (with some quite impressive results, I might add). And none of us are machine learning people. The important thing is: the Cyber Grand Challenge is funding a dozen teams to do exactly what OpenAI is hiring for. Call it AI or not, it's being done. You might look at the proposal to automatically exploit systems and call it sci-fi, but I look at it and think "Sure, that sounds doable." Today's program analysis and synthesis technology allows for tools far beyond anything programmers see today. I'm excited to be part of a generation of researchers trying to turn it into the programming revolution we've been waiting for.
- choosername 10y agoOut there are a lot of announcements of really existent research results, even popular ones.
- jcoffland 10y agoI agree but legitimate results are quickly extrapolated to Skynet by the media.