10 ms·

> He went on a week long cabin-in-the-middle-of-nowhere trip about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). Yo

> He went on a week long cabin-in-the-middle-of-nowhere trip about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). You must be joking, right? I'm as much of a Carmack fan as anyone here, but overstating the skills of one personal hero does no good to anyone.

grumpy8 7y ago
To be fair, a whole uninterrupted week of highly focussed work can get you pretty far (considering that you have the necessary background, which Carmack has, i.e. related to linear algebra, stats, programming, etc.)
- short_sells_poo 7y ago
  Yes, but let's not assume the the hundreds of other scientists in the field have just been twiddling their thumbs the whole time. It is preposterous to assume that someone largely new to a highly specialized field can somehow start pushing the envelope within a week. Yes, JC is nothing short of brilliant, but these sort of assumptions just set him up to disappoint and is also highly unfair to all the other hardworking brilliant people in the field.
  - nitwit005 7y ago
    They didn't suggest he invented some new technique. Figuring out the basics of the math and how to use whatever tools they use at FB is doable in a week.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    Sometimes an outside perspective is just the ticket for getting past roadblocks that've stumped the experts. If any outsider could do this, it's John.
    - dimino 7y ago
      Sometimes, but mostly not.
      - dingo_bat 7y ago
        But John is not most men.
  - rfhjt 7y ago
    How many of them are doing real research, though? Corporate researchers improve ads impressions and academics researches are busy generating pointless papers or they won't be paid. Very few if any do actual research.
    - mr_mitm 7y ago
      Generating papers is research. I don't understand why you dismiss all papers as pointless.
      - rfhjt 7y ago
        The need to generate publishable papers means that a researcher can only participate in activity that leads to such a paper. He can't try to work on that idea for 5 years, because if no big papers follow, he's toast /he'd probably lose funding long before that).
        p1esk 7y ago
        You have to earn the right to work on your idea for 5 years and get paid. Otherwise we would be funding all kind of crackpots. First you demonstrate you're a good researcher by producing good results. Then you can work on whatever you feel like (either by getting hired at places like DeepMind, or by finding funding sources that want to pay for what you want to work on).
        rfhjt 7y ago
        This is what I meant. In our society, only very few, usually already rich, can try their own ideas. Most of us have to stick with known ideas that bring profit to business owners or meaningful visibility to universities. When I was in college, I had to work on ideas approved by my professor. Now I have to work on ideas approved by my corporation. But if I had money, I'd work on something completely different. Sure, in 15 I will be rich and can start doing my own stuff, but I'll also be old and my ability will be nowhere near the peak at 25 years.
carlosdp 7y ago
I'm not saying he's LeCun, I'm just saying he gets up to speed absurdly fast. So it's not unreasonable to suppose that by now, he's learned enough to start seriously contributing to this kind of problem. edit: to be clear, all I'm saying is he can catch up to the body of research already out there quicker than the average bear, and he's shown a real knack for designing solutions and being crazy productive. I'm not pretending he's gunna be publishing insane novel research anytime soon, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being a real voice in the field.
- zaroth 7y ago
  No, you can’t push the envelope in AGI after a week in the woods. That must come off as pretty insulting to the hundreds of world class scientists who have been working in the field for decades.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    To be fair, they said proficient and not world class or inventing new material.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    I never said that, where the hell did I say he pushed anything? All I'm saying is he's shown to be insanely productive and effective and I think he can catch up to the body of research (created and shared by those hundreds of scientists) to become a real contributor very quickly.
    - monktastic1 7y ago
      FWIW, "seriously contributing to this kind of problem" sounds basically the same as "pushing the envelope" to me. They both suggest contributing something novel and useful.
      - austhrow743 7y ago
        They are basically the same thing. What are not basically the same thing are "he started seriously contributing to this kind of problem after a week in the woods" and "he spent a week in the woods a year ago and is ready to start contributing now. A year after that week in the woods."
Yajirobe 7y ago
Huh? One week is more than enough to go through Siraj's videos.
- b3kart 7y ago
  Please tell me this is sarcasm.
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    It's HN so only the best sarcasm is allowed here. That is good sarcasm. Bask in it. Source: Commenter name is DBZ character
echelon 7y ago
What a weird future it would be if Carmack turns out to be the one to figure out the critical path and get it all working. An entire field of brilliant researchers be damned. History books (for as long as those continue to exist) would cite AGI as his major contribution to society, and his name would be more renowned than Edison or Tesla. An Einstein. None of his other contributions will matter, as the machines will replace it all. Just daydreaming, though.
- derefr 7y ago
  I wonder how many historical figures went through the same thing? Who do we know for their contributions to field X, when 99% of their life was spent contributing to field Y?
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    Very few, at least for STEM fields. If you look at notable scientists in any given field, their main contributions were in their expertise area before the thing that made them famous. Teller had already made serious contributions to physics before the atom bomb. Jennifer Doudna (CRISPR, CAS9) was the first to see the structure of RNA (except for tRNA) using an innovative crystalline technique. Planck is mainly known for quantum physics, but made huge contributions to the field in general. It's hard to think of many famous scientists that weren't already well known in their field. Some stand out. Einstein, for example, had a fairly lackluster career until his Annus Mirabilis papers. Mark Z. Danielewski (House of Leaves) bounced to and from various jobs. But largely, the idea of the brilliant outsider is like the 10x engineer. It exists, but is rare.
    - zwaps 7y ago
      Even Einstein I would not say didn't have formal training. He had been in and around academia for most of his life. He was obviously far ahead of the curve, but he did accumulate the formal training. His stint in a regular job was more of an anomaly than his affinity to academia and physics.
sdenton4 7y ago
Yeah, but we really need to know who would win in a lightsaber fight between Carmack and Jeff Dean.
- okareaman 7y ago
  I wonder what they would pick if each had to choose their weapon
workthrowaway 7y ago
funny i wanted to make the same comment last night but was too lazy. wasn't the first time John did what he did. and it's not the usual kind of learning either. he was learning by first principles. i truly love this idea of replaying in your own mind what went on when something was discovered (or at least come close to it). contrast that with how ML & AI are taught nowadays: thrown into a Jupyter notebook with all FAANG libraries loaded for you...

grumpy8 7y ago

To be fair, a whole uninterrupted week of highly focussed work can get you pretty far (considering that you have the necessary background, which Carmack has, i.e. related to linear algebra, stats, programming, etc.)

short_sells_poo 7y ago
Yes, but let's not assume the the hundreds of other scientists in the field have just been twiddling their thumbs the whole time. It is preposterous to assume that someone largely new to a highly specialized field can somehow start pushing the envelope within a week. Yes, JC is nothing short of brilliant, but these sort of assumptions just set him up to disappoint and is also highly unfair to all the other hardworking brilliant people in the field.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  They didn't suggest he invented some new technique. Figuring out the basics of the math and how to use whatever tools they use at FB is doable in a week.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Sometimes an outside perspective is just the ticket for getting past roadblocks that've stumped the experts. If any outsider could do this, it's John.
  - dimino 7y ago
    Sometimes, but mostly not.
    - dingo_bat 7y ago
      But John is not most men.
- rfhjt 7y ago
  How many of them are doing real research, though? Corporate researchers improve ads impressions and academics researches are busy generating pointless papers or they won't be paid. Very few if any do actual research.
  - mr_mitm 7y ago
    Generating papers is research. I don't understand why you dismiss all papers as pointless.
    - rfhjt 7y ago
      The need to generate publishable papers means that a researcher can only participate in activity that leads to such a paper. He can't try to work on that idea for 5 years, because if no big papers follow, he's toast /he'd probably lose funding long before that).
      - p1esk 7y ago
        You have to earn the right to work on your idea for 5 years and get paid. Otherwise we would be funding all kind of crackpots. First you demonstrate you're a good researcher by producing good results. Then you can work on whatever you feel like (either by getting hired at places like DeepMind, or by finding funding sources that want to pay for what you want to work on).
        rfhjt 7y ago
        This is what I meant. In our society, only very few, usually already rich, can try their own ideas. Most of us have to stick with known ideas that bring profit to business owners or meaningful visibility to universities. When I was in college, I had to work on ideas approved by my professor. Now I have to work on ideas approved by my corporation. But if I had money, I'd work on something completely different. Sure, in 15 I will be rich and can start doing my own stuff, but I'll also be old and my ability will be nowhere near the peak at 25 years.

carlosdp 7y ago

I'm not saying he's LeCun, I'm just saying he gets up to speed absurdly fast. So it's not unreasonable to suppose that by now, he's learned enough to start seriously contributing to this kind of problem. edit: to be clear, all I'm saying is he can catch up to the body of research already out there quicker than the average bear, and he's shown a real knack for designing solutions and being crazy productive. I'm not pretending he's gunna be publishing insane novel research anytime soon, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being a real voice in the field.

zaroth 7y ago
No, you can’t push the envelope in AGI after a week in the woods. That must come off as pretty insulting to the hundreds of world class scientists who have been working in the field for decades.
- true_religion 7y ago
  To be fair, they said proficient and not world class or inventing new material.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  I never said that, where the hell did I say he pushed anything? All I'm saying is he's shown to be insanely productive and effective and I think he can catch up to the body of research (created and shared by those hundreds of scientists) to become a real contributor very quickly.
  - monktastic1 7y ago
    FWIW, "seriously contributing to this kind of problem" sounds basically the same as "pushing the envelope" to me. They both suggest contributing something novel and useful.
    - austhrow743 7y ago
      They are basically the same thing. What are not basically the same thing are "he started seriously contributing to this kind of problem after a week in the woods" and "he spent a week in the woods a year ago and is ready to start contributing now. A year after that week in the woods."

Yajirobe 7y ago

Huh? One week is more than enough to go through Siraj's videos.

b3kart 7y ago
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  It's HN so only the best sarcasm is allowed here. That is good sarcasm. Bask in it. Source: Commenter name is DBZ character

echelon 7y ago

What a weird future it would be if Carmack turns out to be the one to figure out the critical path and get it all working. An entire field of brilliant researchers be damned. History books (for as long as those continue to exist) would cite AGI as his major contribution to society, and his name would be more renowned than Edison or Tesla. An Einstein. None of his other contributions will matter, as the machines will replace it all. Just daydreaming, though.

derefr 7y ago
I wonder how many historical figures went through the same thing? Who do we know for their contributions to field X, when 99% of their life was spent contributing to field Y?
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  Very few, at least for STEM fields. If you look at notable scientists in any given field, their main contributions were in their expertise area before the thing that made them famous. Teller had already made serious contributions to physics before the atom bomb. Jennifer Doudna (CRISPR, CAS9) was the first to see the structure of RNA (except for tRNA) using an innovative crystalline technique. Planck is mainly known for quantum physics, but made huge contributions to the field in general. It's hard to think of many famous scientists that weren't already well known in their field. Some stand out. Einstein, for example, had a fairly lackluster career until his Annus Mirabilis papers. Mark Z. Danielewski (House of Leaves) bounced to and from various jobs. But largely, the idea of the brilliant outsider is like the 10x engineer. It exists, but is rare.
  - zwaps 7y ago
    Even Einstein I would not say didn't have formal training. He had been in and around academia for most of his life. He was obviously far ahead of the curve, but he did accumulate the formal training. His stint in a regular job was more of an anomaly than his affinity to academia and physics.

sdenton4 7y ago

Yeah, but we really need to know who would win in a lightsaber fight between Carmack and Jeff Dean.

okareaman 7y ago
I wonder what they would pick if each had to choose their weapon

workthrowaway 7y ago

funny i wanted to make the same comment last night but was too lazy. wasn't the first time John did what he did. and it's not the usual kind of learning either. he was learning by first principles. i truly love this idea of replaying in your own mind what went on when something was discovered (or at least come close to it). contrast that with how ML & AI are taught nowadays: thrown into a Jupyter notebook with all FAANG libraries loaded for you...