4 ms·

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

by 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.

by Elrac 9y ago

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.