3 ms·
I agree with your point. By the way, I would like to point the "elephant in the room": what if after so many hype, heuristic/ad-hoc AI becomes able to beat expe
by faragon 10y ago
I agree with your point. By the way, I would like to point the "elephant in the room": what if after so many hype, heuristic/ad-hoc AI becomes able to beat expensive "deep learning" AI in most cases? In my opinion, that could bring next AI "winter". E.g. imagine a 5-10$ RISCV (or ARM/PIC32) 300MHz microcontroller with 4MB of embedded RAM/ROM beating 400-2000$ ASIC/FPGA stuff with teraflops and gigabytes of RAM in most AI problems with "good enough" results.
edit: grammar corrections
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoI think I know what you're trying to say, but it's really difficult to follow your writing. Just some friendly feedback.
- nix0n 10y agoI'm not 100% clear what you mean by heuristic/ad-hoc. The first AI winter happened because researchers (e.g. Lenat) thought they could build true AI (consciousness) out of millions of rules. If rules, guidelines, and heuristics can beat neural nets at driving (which they might, I agree with you on that) it won't start a new AI winter because it won't erase the other things that neural nets are good at (e.g. classification).
- faragon 10y agoSure, "real" AI is important. I meant that using massive resources for solving simple problems with expensive AI will drive to deception, as soon as someone shows equivalent results by using cheaper AI (e.g. minimax, pathfinding, linear optimization, expert systems, etc.). In my opinion, it is like hunting ducks with cannons when using a simple gun could be enough for it. In my opinion, real advances apart, a large portion of the "new AI bussines" is just a way of getting money from investors telling following magic words: "deep learning", "big data", "jump the wagon before it gets too late", etc.