5 ms·

You're right on many points. My observation is, when it comes to deeper Ai that trends towards AGI, the private sector seems lost in terms of the big ideas and

You're right on many points. My observation is, when it comes to deeper Ai that trends towards AGI, the private sector seems lost in terms of the big ideas and applications. The VCs are also lost and have no idea on how to appreciate fundamentally groundbreaking R&D development ventures. To be honest, most of the funding and deeply interesting work for ground breaking Ai research lies in the public and defense sector. They have more of an idea and vision for what Ai can be applied to than the private sector. Leaps and bounds beyond. In the private sector, I get asked questions like 'Can it be used to predict if someone will click on an ad'. In the public sector, I get a 40 page technology acquisition pdf outlining a forward thinking application of Ai. People forget that self driving cars arose from Darpa research. The latest innovations in computer security utilizing Ai came from a Darpa competition. IBM's neuromorphic chip : darpa funding. Darpa and other defense programs also have a slew of Ai development projects open to researchers. Ultimately I find this a bit ridiculous given how vocal some individuals in the tech field are about the 'dangers of Ai'. They harp and harp about what could happen if more capable Ai gets developed but you don't see their money anywhere near the groups doing deeper development in Ai. Lastly.. Yes, better solutions and more deeply inspired approaches to Ai will trump hoards of data and compute power any-day. Thank goodness for the public sector pushing forward fundamental research and development in Ai.

Eliezer 10y ago
> Ultimately I find this a bit ridiculous given how vocal some individuals in the tech field are about the 'dangers of Ai'. They harp and harp about what could happen if more capable Ai gets developed but you don't see their money anywhere near the groups doing deeper development in Ai. ...because if you think AGI is dangerous, you should fund groups trying to develop it? I am puzzled by the presentation of this proposition as if it is an absolutely obvious sequitur requiring no defense, such that failure to follow through on it is "ridiculous".
- outsideline 10y ago
  Yep. "The best way to predict the future is to create it" Don't stretch your mind to far on this one. If someone or various groups develop AGI and you have no stake in them, you will have no say in how it gets used. For once, people need to be honest with themselves about this. You're not going to be able to dictate from a third party consortium of PhDs how someone should run their company or develop their software.
davedx 10y ago
Have you heard of the OpenAI initiative?
- outsideline 10y ago
  Yes, do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years? I see no big names invested in them. Why would someone try to create your own group having no background in development of AGI? Seems a bit off the mark no? Most AGI focused ventures are not even in the U.S. A prominent one is in China. Another is in Europe. The ones in the U.S are privately funded beyond the big names. Furthermore, where is the U.S's equivalent of : https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ ? Where are the seasoned software engineers in the ranks at these highly funded silicon valley Ai companies? I typically see a roster of 'big names' and PhDs... Whereas, I look at the companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals.. PHD neuroscience, Senior game developer, Robotics Engineer, Senior firmware developer, Guy from down the hall who can code circles around silicon valley's most decorated engineer, etc etc. Look at the Geohot story, that's the kind of individual and company who ushers in a new paradigm .... If the solution requires you to 'think different', how do you expect to achieve it by padding your company with a bunch of individuals who are all centered on the same techniques from academia?
  - daveguy 10y ago
    >do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years? I do not. It seems like researchers who call themselves AGI researchers have made no more significant progress than researchers developing specific analysis techniques. Do you have a list of these groups? I would be very interested to read about their approach and progress. On the human brain initiative it seems like their is such a huge gap between AGI and current techniques that these HBI projects (and the US response[0]) are a bit misguided into giant neural simulations. > ... companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals ... I completely agree this is the necessary approach to pursuing AGI. Who are these companies? They sound awesome and I would like to learn more. Are you talking OpenAI? Some other companies? Geohot. Will check him out. EDIT: oh, George Hotz. He is using deep learning[1] Agreed deep learning will be a tool, but not the end of AGI. Companies padding with deep learning PhDs are looking more at specific tasks that can be tackled with deep learning. Also, I would argue that deep learning has become an umbrella term for all neural network based approaches (great marketing) and there are still great advances to be made with DL building blocks. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driving-car/ http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
>> outlining a forward thinking application of Ai. As someone miles away from the field, what are those forward thinking applications (ie things that are within the reach of MI today but are basically ignored by private sector)
dharma1 10y ago
I agree, but it's the same problem with all basic research. There are no guarantees of results and it can take a long time. So much of it gets done with public resources. In fact much of the deep learning advances we (including Google) enjoy today were done with Canadian (University of Montreal) and European (IDSIA) taxpayers money over the last couple of decades
- outsideline 10y ago
  More should be done to highlight this. The persistent fanboy like culture, among those even in tech, which centers on only a handful of popular corporate names who serve as system integrators after the fact is dishonest and disingenuous in my opinion. Given that the public funding of basic research most always results in the ushering in of new technological paradigms that make corporations tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars, more should be done to make sure they pay back into the system that ensures their constant success.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jcannell 10y ago
>You're right on many points. My observation is, when it comes to deeper Ai that trends towards AGI, the private sector seems lost in terms of the big ideas and applications. The VCs are also lost and have no idea on how to appreciate fundamentally groundbreaking R&D development ventures. DeepMind was VC funded before Google acquired them. A number of AI/ML startups would like to pursue AGI in the long-term, but why not make revenue along the way? Still, there is at least one startup - Vicarious - focusing purely on long-term research towards AGI that VCs poured plenty of money into, and there are probably others.
- outsideline 10y ago
  Deep Mind was funded by Elon Musk as well as others in its earlier stages. Elon Musk is one of the individuals who speaks out as if he is wildly fearful of where Ai is going. Fundamentally, an individual has no control over what an AGI development group does unless they're invested in them. There are many notable groups beyond the handful that get the spotlight. They are for instance : working on a Conscious Artificial Intelligence. That is not a 'future goal' of theirs. That is the one and only goal of their efforts. Who do you think will get their first? >A number of AI/ML startups would like to pursue AGI in the long-term, but why not make revenue along the way? That's exactly the dilemma that many capable researchers faced. Some chose to make money along the way. It shapes the way you then go about solving AGI down the road. It saps up your resources, imagination, and potential and it redirects it to shorter term thinking. Being in the space, there should be an understanding of Short-term vs. long-term thinking based on a reward system that targets short-term success. > Still, there is at least one startup - Vicarious - focusing purely on long-term research towards AGI that VCs poured plenty of money into, and there are probably others. I'm familiar with Vicarious. You are correct and they notably publish far less details than others. They are funded by top names and are probably the least mentioned when people mention Ai. Why, given the impact that AGI can have, aren't more groups funded? A solution is seemingly right around the corner... Do people not see this?

Eliezer 10y ago

> Ultimately I find this a bit ridiculous given how vocal some individuals in the tech field are about the 'dangers of Ai'. They harp and harp about what could happen if more capable Ai gets developed but you don't see their money anywhere near the groups doing deeper development in Ai. ...because if you think AGI is dangerous, you should fund groups trying to develop it? I am puzzled by the presentation of this proposition as if it is an absolutely obvious sequitur requiring no defense, such that failure to follow through on it is "ridiculous".

outsideline 10y ago
Yep. "The best way to predict the future is to create it" Don't stretch your mind to far on this one. If someone or various groups develop AGI and you have no stake in them, you will have no say in how it gets used. For once, people need to be honest with themselves about this. You're not going to be able to dictate from a third party consortium of PhDs how someone should run their company or develop their software.

davedx 10y ago

Have you heard of the OpenAI initiative?

outsideline 10y ago
Yes, do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years? I see no big names invested in them. Why would someone try to create your own group having no background in development of AGI? Seems a bit off the mark no? Most AGI focused ventures are not even in the U.S. A prominent one is in China. Another is in Europe. The ones in the U.S are privately funded beyond the big names. Furthermore, where is the U.S's equivalent of : https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ ? Where are the seasoned software engineers in the ranks at these highly funded silicon valley Ai companies? I typically see a roster of 'big names' and PhDs... Whereas, I look at the companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals.. PHD neuroscience, Senior game developer, Robotics Engineer, Senior firmware developer, Guy from down the hall who can code circles around silicon valley's most decorated engineer, etc etc. Look at the Geohot story, that's the kind of individual and company who ushers in a new paradigm .... If the solution requires you to 'think different', how do you expect to achieve it by padding your company with a bunch of individuals who are all centered on the same techniques from academia?
- daveguy 10y ago
  >do you know of the number of groups who are actively developing AGI? who have made steady progress over the years? I do not. It seems like researchers who call themselves AGI researchers have made no more significant progress than researchers developing specific analysis techniques. Do you have a list of these groups? I would be very interested to read about their approach and progress. On the human brain initiative it seems like their is such a huge gap between AGI and current techniques that these HBI projects (and the US response[0]) are a bit misguided into giant neural simulations. > ... companies specifically pursuing AGI and I see a whole range of individuals ... I completely agree this is the necessary approach to pursuing AGI. Who are these companies? They sound awesome and I would like to learn more. Are you talking OpenAI? Some other companies? Geohot. Will check him out. EDIT: oh, George Hotz. He is using deep learning[1] Agreed deep learning will be a tool, but not the end of AGI. Companies padding with deep learning PhDs are looking more at specific tasks that can be tackled with deep learning. Also, I would argue that deep learning has become an umbrella term for all neural network based approaches (great marketing) and there are still great advances to be made with DL building blocks. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driving-car/ http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

>> outlining a forward thinking application of Ai. As someone miles away from the field, what are those forward thinking applications (ie things that are within the reach of MI today but are basically ignored by private sector)

dharma1 10y ago

I agree, but it's the same problem with all basic research. There are no guarantees of results and it can take a long time. So much of it gets done with public resources. In fact much of the deep learning advances we (including Google) enjoy today were done with Canadian (University of Montreal) and European (IDSIA) taxpayers money over the last couple of decades

outsideline 10y ago
More should be done to highlight this. The persistent fanboy like culture, among those even in tech, which centers on only a handful of popular corporate names who serve as system integrators after the fact is dishonest and disingenuous in my opinion. Given that the public funding of basic research most always results in the ushering in of new technological paradigms that make corporations tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars, more should be done to make sure they pay back into the system that ensures their constant success.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jcannell 10y ago

>You're right on many points. My observation is, when it comes to deeper Ai that trends towards AGI, the private sector seems lost in terms of the big ideas and applications. The VCs are also lost and have no idea on how to appreciate fundamentally groundbreaking R&D development ventures. DeepMind was VC funded before Google acquired them. A number of AI/ML startups would like to pursue AGI in the long-term, but why not make revenue along the way? Still, there is at least one startup - Vicarious - focusing purely on long-term research towards AGI that VCs poured plenty of money into, and there are probably others.

outsideline 10y ago
Deep Mind was funded by Elon Musk as well as others in its earlier stages. Elon Musk is one of the individuals who speaks out as if he is wildly fearful of where Ai is going. Fundamentally, an individual has no control over what an AGI development group does unless they're invested in them. There are many notable groups beyond the handful that get the spotlight. They are for instance : working on a Conscious Artificial Intelligence. That is not a 'future goal' of theirs. That is the one and only goal of their efforts. Who do you think will get their first? >A number of AI/ML startups would like to pursue AGI in the long-term, but why not make revenue along the way? That's exactly the dilemma that many capable researchers faced. Some chose to make money along the way. It shapes the way you then go about solving AGI down the road. It saps up your resources, imagination, and potential and it redirects it to shorter term thinking. Being in the space, there should be an understanding of Short-term vs. long-term thinking based on a reward system that targets short-term success. > Still, there is at least one startup - Vicarious - focusing purely on long-term research towards AGI that VCs poured plenty of money into, and there are probably others. I'm familiar with Vicarious. You are correct and they notably publish far less details than others. They are funded by top names and are probably the least mentioned when people mention Ai. Why, given the impact that AGI can have, aren't more groups funded? A solution is seemingly right around the corner... Do people not see this?