3 ms·
But it doesn't parallelize. Watching 1000 babies for their first 0.365 days isn't going to reveal their potential. More practically, deep learning experiments
by tlb 7y ago
But it doesn't parallelize. Watching 1000 babies for their first 0.365 days isn't going to reveal their potential.
More practically, deep learning experiments were tried in the 80s, but the results weren't encouraging. If they'd left the experiments running for a sufficiently long time, they might have gotten great results. But they gave it a few days, saw the loss rate plateau and hit ^C, and that was that.
Most likely, the early deep learning experiments had some parameters wrong. Wisdom about choosing parameters only came once people could run multiple experiments in a week. So it's likely the same with some hypothetical AGI. Early experiments will have some parameters wrong, and it'll either go into seizures or catatonia. We won't be able to get the parameters right until we can run experiments faster than human brains. Say, simulating 5 years of life in a week, or 250x real time.
- jacquesm 7y agoYes, we are indeed in violent agreement.
- jacobush 7y agoWow, that is a thought I didn't have before. Thanks! Still, we wouldn't even know what real time is, or what the "x" is, rather, until after we have achieved AGI. Also a mind bender.
- tlb 7y agoRight, we have no idea how much computation it takes. Discoveries usually start with a less efficient algorithm, and then the performance gradually improves once we know what it needs to do. We might need 1000x the compute power to discover something as it'll eventually need once we deploy it. So I'm a big fan of ridiculously fast hardware like this article describes.