4 ms·

Yup. “All the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting,” - Judea Pearl

RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
Ok. So can you make an argument that any kind of intelligence or learning is anything more than curve fitting. I think the goalpost moving that's gone on with AI (deep blue, AlphaGo, etc) is as ridiculous as the 'its overhyped and just curve-fitting', when no ones settled into the difficult task of rigorously defining what 'intelligence' is. So consider the possibility that all forms of intelligence are some flavor of curve fitting. Is that such a problem? If that were the case, what would be so wrong with calling non-biological systems which can optimize curve fitting 'intelligent, artificial'?
- cik2e 8y ago
  I had the identical sentiment after reading that dismissive oversimplification. Here’s the source interview: https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build-truly-intelligent-machines-teach-them-cause-and-effect-20180515/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build-truly-intelligent-ma.... For a man of his experience, I am surprised that he is forgetting the incremental nature of science. Most high level researchers are not visionaries but are really damn good at what they do. Their work will provide the building blocks for game-changing advances. His goal is to draw attention to the loftier problems in AI but doing so by belittling the work of others is immature and ineffective as a motivational tool. Who’s going to switch gears to exploring radically different approaches because what we’re doing now is so boring and lame? I would have loved to read more about his proposed avenues of research instead of how unimpressed he is with curve fitting.
  - sgt101 8y ago
    Plenty of chances : http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html
sgt101 8y ago
I would cite Professor Pearl's work as some of the most interesting artefacts derived from the program of Artificial Intelligence. Causal modelling is a big deal! Causal models are one of the things I call AI technology.

Ok. So can you make an argument that any kind of intelligence or learning is anything more than curve fitting. I think the goalpost moving that's gone on with AI (deep blue, AlphaGo, etc) is as ridiculous as the 'its overhyped and just curve-fitting', when no ones settled into the difficult task of rigorously defining what 'intelligence' is. So consider the possibility that all forms of intelligence are some flavor of curve fitting. Is that such a problem? If that were the case, what would be so wrong with calling non-biological systems which can optimize curve fitting 'intelligent, artificial'?

cik2e 8y ago
I had the identical sentiment after reading that dismissive oversimplification. Here’s the source interview: https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build-truly-intelligent-machines-teach-them-cause-and-effect-20180515/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build-truly-intelligent-ma.... For a man of his experience, I am surprised that he is forgetting the incremental nature of science. Most high level researchers are not visionaries but are really damn good at what they do. Their work will provide the building blocks for game-changing advances. His goal is to draw attention to the loftier problems in AI but doing so by belittling the work of others is immature and ineffective as a motivational tool. Who’s going to switch gears to exploring radically different approaches because what we’re doing now is so boring and lame? I would have loved to read more about his proposed avenues of research instead of how unimpressed he is with curve fitting.
- sgt101 8y ago
  Plenty of chances : http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html

sgt101 8y ago

I would cite Professor Pearl's work as some of the most interesting artefacts derived from the program of Artificial Intelligence. Causal modelling is a big deal! Causal models are one of the things I call AI technology.