3 ms·
> _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
by 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 agoWhat 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.