5 ms·

No. Maybe an "AI Fall", but I doubt there will ever be another true "AI Winter". The AI we have today is too good, and creates too much value... at this point,

No. Maybe an "AI Fall", but I doubt there will ever be another true "AI Winter". The AI we have today is too good, and creates too much value... at this point, there is no longer any question as to whether or not there is value in continuing to research and invest in AI. What will happen, almost without doubt, is that particular niches within the overall rubric of "AI" will go in and out of vogue, and investment in particular segments will fluctuate. For example, the steam will run out of the "deep learning revolution" at some point, as people realize that DL alone is not enough to make the leap to systems that employ common sense reasoning, have a grasp of intuitive physics, have an intuitive metaphysics, and have other such attributes that will be needed to come close to approximating human intelligence. Disclaimer: credit for the observation about "intuitive physics" and "intuitive metaphysics" goes to Melanie Mitchell, via her recent AI Podcast interview with Lex Fridman. One other observation... while we still don't know how far away AGI is (much less ASI), or even if it's possible, the important thing is that we don't need AGI to do many amazing and valuable things. I also doubt many people are actually all that disillusioned that we aren't yet living in The Matrix (or are we???).

_bxg1 7y ago
We could still have the bottom fall out of the term "AI", since there's a big gap between the present reality - no matter how useful - and the aspirational nature of the phrase "Artificial Intelligence". Take any business that brands itself as an "AI startup", any quote from Mark Zuckerberg about solving Facebook's content problem with AI, etc., and replace "AI" with "statistical algorithms" and it just doesn't have nearly the same ring to it. That alone means we're due for some kind of big correction.
Barrin92 7y ago
> the important thing is that we don't need AGI to do many amazing and valuable things that's absolutely true but I think a lot of people still consider actual human-like intelligence, common sense and so on to be important features of what we call AI or AGI. I think it's very obvious when we look at the cultural impact of AI in fiction or even in discussion around the dangers of AI that this is what many people in and outside the field are thinking about. I think it's true that the commercial success of current techniques will endure but then maybe we should start differentiating between a sort of 'automation science' and cognitive/intelligent systems. Because on the latter I really don't think we are seeing much or maybe even any progress.

_bxg1 7y ago

We could still have the bottom fall out of the term "AI", since there's a big gap between the present reality - no matter how useful - and the aspirational nature of the phrase "Artificial Intelligence". Take any business that brands itself as an "AI startup", any quote from Mark Zuckerberg about solving Facebook's content problem with AI, etc., and replace "AI" with "statistical algorithms" and it just doesn't have nearly the same ring to it. That alone means we're due for some kind of big correction.

Barrin92 7y ago

> the important thing is that we don't need AGI to do many amazing and valuable things that's absolutely true but I think a lot of people still consider actual human-like intelligence, common sense and so on to be important features of what we call AI or AGI. I think it's very obvious when we look at the cultural impact of AI in fiction or even in discussion around the dangers of AI that this is what many people in and outside the field are thinking about. I think it's true that the commercial success of current techniques will endure but then maybe we should start differentiating between a sort of 'automation science' and cognitive/intelligent systems. Because on the latter I really don't think we are seeing much or maybe even any progress.