5 ms·

> DeepMind, on the other hand, was created as a "blank slate" with no more hard-wired instruction than "create optimal algorithms to achieve the winning state,

> DeepMind, on the other hand, was created as a "blank slate" with no more hard-wired instruction than "create optimal algorithms to achieve the winning state, given the inputs." Critically, its learning phase is completely self-directed. Essentially, the box is given access to the controls and the video screen content and then sent on its way. Have you seen DeepMind algorithm to be able to say this ? Are there other people outside of Google who have seen the algorithm and can confirm Google's press release?

Elrac 9y ago
Maybe you have some legitimate concern about Googles' claim as per their press release and my comment. Who knows, maybe they have some reason to lie about what they did! But then I wonder why you aren't asking the same question of my parent poster. Has he viewed the DeepMind code, is he qualified to tell us it works the same as chess code? Having made that claim backed on even less evidence than I made mine, I'd say his burden of proof is somewhat greater.
- rspeer 9y ago
  I think there's a heavy dose of press release to what Google is saying. Most people wouldn't call PR puff "lying", but only because standards are low. I don't think Google has fundamentally different deep-learning technology than everyone else. In fact, TensorFlow indicates that they have the same kind of deep-learning technology as everyone else and they just want to do it more cleanly. Deep learning is parameter optimization. There are more parameters now, and they optimize more things, but don't get caught up in wild visions of machines designing themselves. Would you consider the bzip2 algorithm to be "self-directed learning"? What's the difference, besides the number of parameters? The PR people, when they say "blank slate", are discounting all the programming that went into the system because it sounds more impressive that way. This is unfortunate. It has happened in AI for decades. To be a responsible consumer of AI press releases, you need to understand this.
  - Elrac 9y ago
    > _I don't think Google has fundamentally different deep-learning technology than everyone else._ That's true, and I never claimed otherwise, but that doesn't help you argue your point - in fact, you just proved yourself wrong. From IBM's press release: > _Does Deep Blue use artificial intelligence? The short answer is "no." Earlier computer designs that tried to mimic human thinking weren't very good at it. No formula exists for intuition. So Deep Blue's designers have gone "back to the future." Deep Blue relies more on computational power and a simpler search and evaluation function._ I'll summarize for you: Deep Blue and DeepMind, similar names notwithstanding, work in very different ways.
    - rspeer 9y ago
      What comparison are you even making here? I know that Deep Blue and Deep Mind are different. There is 25 years (edit: sorry, 20 years) between them! Deep Blue is not deep learning. Did the word "deep", used in two unrelated ways, confuse you? What I am saying is that I know how deep learning works, actual deep learning of the present, and it does not involve "programming itself". You are trying to tell me that it must be programming itself, because a press release said so, and press releases would never lie or exaggerate. Based on the current state of AI, this is very improbable. You should focus less on trying to "prove" things with press releases. I made the comparison to Deep Blue because there is little mystique around it now, and because IBM was even reasonably responsible about avoiding AI hype in their press at the time.
jimsmart 9y ago
AlphaGo uses TensorFlow. DeepMind announced the were switching over to use TensorFlow not long ago. TensorFlow is fully open-source, you can go and read the algorithms on Github. Neural networks aren't particularly hard to understand. The post you are responding to paraphrases the situation, and neglects to mention goal states/conditions, but is otherwise a fair summary of how neural networks work. Neural networks, particularly the 'deep' ones, do seem to operate almost like magick. Disbelief is to be expected, but I suggest you take a proper look at them yourself, and see what they can actually do. If you can grok Python, I highly recommend playing with the Docker image of TensorFlow, which provides a Jupyter notebook (Python in a web interface) where you can easily make use of existing pre-trained models, extend them, and/or build your own models — suitable for application to all kinds of problems / problem domains. Siraj Raval's videos also cover neural networks in almost every aspect - from coding your own NN from scratch for digit recognition (using just NumPy), through explaining what TensorFlow is, how it works, and how to use it — along with a lot of other machine-learning algorithms, libraries and cloud services. Many of these topics are just a 5-10 minute video (some with longer live-coding 'deep dive' follow-ups), and many of the code examples are fully functional but just a screen or two of code. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A There's also some great new videos on AI / machine learning by Google and Facebook on Youtube that are well worth a watch if the topic interests you.

Elrac 9y ago

Maybe you have some legitimate concern about Googles' claim as per their press release and my comment. Who knows, maybe they have some reason to lie about what they did! But then I wonder why you aren't asking the same question of my parent poster. Has he viewed the DeepMind code, is he qualified to tell us it works the same as chess code? Having made that claim backed on even less evidence than I made mine, I'd say his burden of proof is somewhat greater.

rspeer 9y ago
I think there's a heavy dose of press release to what Google is saying. Most people wouldn't call PR puff "lying", but only because standards are low. I don't think Google has fundamentally different deep-learning technology than everyone else. In fact, TensorFlow indicates that they have the same kind of deep-learning technology as everyone else and they just want to do it more cleanly. Deep learning is parameter optimization. There are more parameters now, and they optimize more things, but don't get caught up in wild visions of machines designing themselves. Would you consider the bzip2 algorithm to be "self-directed learning"? What's the difference, besides the number of parameters? The PR people, when they say "blank slate", are discounting all the programming that went into the system because it sounds more impressive that way. This is unfortunate. It has happened in AI for decades. To be a responsible consumer of AI press releases, you need to understand this.
- Elrac 9y ago
  > _I don't think Google has fundamentally different deep-learning technology than everyone else._ That's true, and I never claimed otherwise, but that doesn't help you argue your point - in fact, you just proved yourself wrong. From IBM's press release: > _Does Deep Blue use artificial intelligence? The short answer is "no." Earlier computer designs that tried to mimic human thinking weren't very good at it. No formula exists for intuition. So Deep Blue's designers have gone "back to the future." Deep Blue relies more on computational power and a simpler search and evaluation function._ I'll summarize for you: Deep Blue and DeepMind, similar names notwithstanding, work in very different ways.
  - rspeer 9y ago
    What comparison are you even making here? I know that Deep Blue and Deep Mind are different. There is 25 years (edit: sorry, 20 years) between them! Deep Blue is not deep learning. Did the word "deep", used in two unrelated ways, confuse you? What I am saying is that I know how deep learning works, actual deep learning of the present, and it does not involve "programming itself". You are trying to tell me that it must be programming itself, because a press release said so, and press releases would never lie or exaggerate. Based on the current state of AI, this is very improbable. You should focus less on trying to "prove" things with press releases. I made the comparison to Deep Blue because there is little mystique around it now, and because IBM was even reasonably responsible about avoiding AI hype in their press at the time.

jimsmart 9y ago

AlphaGo uses TensorFlow. DeepMind announced the were switching over to use TensorFlow not long ago. TensorFlow is fully open-source, you can go and read the algorithms on Github. Neural networks aren't particularly hard to understand. The post you are responding to paraphrases the situation, and neglects to mention goal states/conditions, but is otherwise a fair summary of how neural networks work. Neural networks, particularly the 'deep' ones, do seem to operate almost like magick. Disbelief is to be expected, but I suggest you take a proper look at them yourself, and see what they can actually do. If you can grok Python, I highly recommend playing with the Docker image of TensorFlow, which provides a Jupyter notebook (Python in a web interface) where you can easily make use of existing pre-trained models, extend them, and/or build your own models — suitable for application to all kinds of problems / problem domains. Siraj Raval's videos also cover neural networks in almost every aspect - from coding your own NN from scratch for digit recognition (using just NumPy), through explaining what TensorFlow is, how it works, and how to use it — along with a lot of other machine-learning algorithms, libraries and cloud services. Many of these topics are just a 5-10 minute video (some with longer live-coding 'deep dive' follow-ups), and many of the code examples are fully functional but just a screen or two of code. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A There's also some great new videos on AI / machine learning by Google and Facebook on Youtube that are well worth a watch if the topic interests you.