4 ms·

Everything Hinton says echoes strongly Kuhn's philosophy on the scientific paradigm. I guess it's not too much of a surprise that he thinks this is the case, bu

Everything Hinton says echoes strongly Kuhn's philosophy on the scientific paradigm. I guess it's not too much of a surprise that he thinks this is the case, but it also shows how intelligent (and shockingly humble) he is to make such a statement. I wish I'd heard of the conference, dammit!

tw1010 9y ago
I think it's great that top researchers are actually learning from Kuhn's observations. I have hope that humanity can indeed learn from its earlier historical mistakes, but it requires us to be very aware of them in order to collectively avoid them.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  I agree. Mr Hinton was somewhat vague and brief in his statements here, though. What do you think the crisis point is that he's reached exactly? (It must be sure enough for the man who introduced the paradigm in the first place to have caught on, yet the change of thought process unclear enough for him to recognize that it will be somebody newer who will have to introduce something else)
  - kobeya 9y ago
    I think his quote is out of context. If he is saying that back propagation networks alone are insufficient for AGI, that is neither surprising nor controversial. Hinton has never been working on the AGI problem. It sounds more like the author is making use of the quotes he/she got from Hinton in the most clickbaity way possible.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      I get what you're saying, but I don't think he was speaking explicitly about AGI. To me it didn't sound like they were leaving the applied problems he has worked on. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models and he's suggesting here that rather than continue with the models that have had success up to this point, it would be more worth the energy to start again at a lower level, rethinking the problem, in order to achieve similar results unsupervised. This may be where my limited knowledge is my handicap, but I didn't think you would need an AGI in order to achieve unsupervised learning. There would still be an input and an output as there is now -- but instead of massive datasets used in training the models could simple experience the problem in real time, adjusting and learning based upon new results. Of course unsupervised learning models could contribute greatly to the pursuit of AGI, but I didn't think AGI predicate unsupervised learning models (which is what I am taking from the article -- or more like article abstract -- here).
      - kobeya 9y ago
        > Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models Word2vec, a variant of which is Transform, Google's new machine translation framework which beats the pants off every other approach, to name one. The system it is replacing is also unsupervised.
        52-6F-62 9y ago
        I hadn't heard of that at all! Thanks. I'll check it out.
        argonaut 9y ago
        Transformer is heavily reliant on supervised learning. Not sure where you're getting that from.
        kobeya 9y ago
        I was talking about word2vec.
LeeHwang 9y ago
Do you mean the theory of scientific revolution ?
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  That's the one. I'm actually just finishing it up now, so it's fresh enough in my mind that it jumps out at me in application.
  - ethnic_throw 9y ago
    I'd be careful reading it: Kuhn is excellent at building narratives, and what is more narrative friendly than revolution? In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges. Unfortunately while I think many of Kuhn's observations are interesting, I'm confused what you think scientists might learn from them. After all, the work in question is science, not philosophy of science, and frankly it seems a lot of time like the latter gets in the way of work (see: Popper's radical empiricism). Poetic? Sure. Useful? Difficult to see how.... Mostly his work seems useful for bolstering the credibility of speculative Popular Science articles (or Axios in this case).
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      Oh well I didn't think I'd applied any subjective notion to my recognition that it sounds like the paradigmatic event that Kohn describes. And having recently gone through the book it was the first thing I noticed. My admiration for Hinton there lay separate from my remark about Kuhn. I'm not quite sure where you got that I think scientists must learn from Kuhn's observations. But I will say, that while it's kept me away from my other studies (for the obvious displacement of reading one thing and not the other), I don't see the harm in indulging in such reflection. But my background isn't engineering, mathematics, or physical sciences before my more recent work. It's in humanities and the arts where multidisciplinary studies are encouraged. I suppose I'll probably always carry that with me. If nothing else, perspective is a good thing to have -- and not all thoughts, reflections, or ideas entertained need be engaged. At any rate, the book was recommended and I try to remain open minded.
    - 9y ago

tw1010 9y ago

I think it's great that top researchers are actually learning from Kuhn's observations. I have hope that humanity can indeed learn from its earlier historical mistakes, but it requires us to be very aware of them in order to collectively avoid them.

52-6F-62 9y ago
I agree. Mr Hinton was somewhat vague and brief in his statements here, though. What do you think the crisis point is that he's reached exactly? (It must be sure enough for the man who introduced the paradigm in the first place to have caught on, yet the change of thought process unclear enough for him to recognize that it will be somebody newer who will have to introduce something else)
- kobeya 9y ago
  I think his quote is out of context. If he is saying that back propagation networks alone are insufficient for AGI, that is neither surprising nor controversial. Hinton has never been working on the AGI problem. It sounds more like the author is making use of the quotes he/she got from Hinton in the most clickbaity way possible.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    I get what you're saying, but I don't think he was speaking explicitly about AGI. To me it didn't sound like they were leaving the applied problems he has worked on. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models and he's suggesting here that rather than continue with the models that have had success up to this point, it would be more worth the energy to start again at a lower level, rethinking the problem, in order to achieve similar results unsupervised. This may be where my limited knowledge is my handicap, but I didn't think you would need an AGI in order to achieve unsupervised learning. There would still be an input and an output as there is now -- but instead of massive datasets used in training the models could simple experience the problem in real time, adjusting and learning based upon new results. Of course unsupervised learning models could contribute greatly to the pursuit of AGI, but I didn't think AGI predicate unsupervised learning models (which is what I am taking from the article -- or more like article abstract -- here).
    - kobeya 9y ago
      > Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models Word2vec, a variant of which is Transform, Google's new machine translation framework which beats the pants off every other approach, to name one. The system it is replacing is also unsupervised.
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        I hadn't heard of that at all! Thanks. I'll check it out.
      - argonaut 9y ago
        Transformer is heavily reliant on supervised learning. Not sure where you're getting that from.
        kobeya 9y ago
        I was talking about word2vec.

LeeHwang 9y ago

Do you mean the theory of scientific revolution ?

52-6F-62 9y ago
That's the one. I'm actually just finishing it up now, so it's fresh enough in my mind that it jumps out at me in application.
- ethnic_throw 9y ago
  I'd be careful reading it: Kuhn is excellent at building narratives, and what is more narrative friendly than revolution? In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges. Unfortunately while I think many of Kuhn's observations are interesting, I'm confused what you think scientists might learn from them. After all, the work in question is science, not philosophy of science, and frankly it seems a lot of time like the latter gets in the way of work (see: Popper's radical empiricism). Poetic? Sure. Useful? Difficult to see how.... Mostly his work seems useful for bolstering the credibility of speculative Popular Science articles (or Axios in this case).
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Oh well I didn't think I'd applied any subjective notion to my recognition that it sounds like the paradigmatic event that Kohn describes. And having recently gone through the book it was the first thing I noticed. My admiration for Hinton there lay separate from my remark about Kuhn. I'm not quite sure where you got that I think scientists must learn from Kuhn's observations. But I will say, that while it's kept me away from my other studies (for the obvious displacement of reading one thing and not the other), I don't see the harm in indulging in such reflection. But my background isn't engineering, mathematics, or physical sciences before my more recent work. It's in humanities and the arts where multidisciplinary studies are encouraged. I suppose I'll probably always carry that with me. If nothing else, perspective is a good thing to have -- and not all thoughts, reflections, or ideas entertained need be engaged. At any rate, the book was recommended and I try to remain open minded.
  - 9y ago