4 ms·

This feels a lot like the kind of "enlightened anti-'AI'" opinion that's more in vogue in some circles. I think if you're following the literature, there's a s

This feels a lot like the kind of "enlightened anti-'AI'" opinion that's more in vogue in some circles. I think if you're following the literature, there's a significant amount that's pointing to the above generalization capabilities that you're contending against because it may not seem likely from your personal experience. If you were to look at your arguments, I think you're extending the idea of expert systems from the 90's and so on and using that to paint a picture of the entire research field of deep learning process today. What we have has the capabilities to not be bound by those things, just the long bootstrapping process takes time. But we're getting closer year by year, and it's more and more exciting along that front as time goes along. As for experience, I am and have been a practicioner in this field for several years.

jplr8922 6y ago
Hm interesting, do you have an recent article to share?
- tbalsam 6y ago
  I'm not sure in particular anything that would be useful beyond certain trends. Things like AlphaFoldv2 and some of the cooperative-competitive emergent RL strategies are interesting/important. You might find some of the concurrent work on open set/zero shot very interesting. I think it's an asymptotic approach on some degrees. Like you noted with meditation -- this is something very hard for a computer to achieve, for a computer has to have a demonstrable concept/actualized sense of self to be able to let go and connect to some of the more spiritual elements there. Conversely, if arguing from a non-materialistic manner, then you could also argue there's some sort of bridge there that could be crossed for that particular kind of connection. Materially, some kind of artistic manifold. But without some kind of spiritual connection, there may always be something missing there. However, we as humans on the interpreting end of things may make the spiritual connections ourselves, so some kind of manifold discovery may not need that kind of connection to properly function. And it may! Who knows? In the end, all in all -- I think a lot of it looks at the open-ended discovery-and-low-label-self-dermination-and-assignment, if you're looking at (what I'd personally consider to be) the most interesting research all rattling around in there. :))))

jplr8922 6y ago

Hm interesting, do you have an recent article to share?

tbalsam 6y ago
I'm not sure in particular anything that would be useful beyond certain trends. Things like AlphaFoldv2 and some of the cooperative-competitive emergent RL strategies are interesting/important. You might find some of the concurrent work on open set/zero shot very interesting. I think it's an asymptotic approach on some degrees. Like you noted with meditation -- this is something very hard for a computer to achieve, for a computer has to have a demonstrable concept/actualized sense of self to be able to let go and connect to some of the more spiritual elements there. Conversely, if arguing from a non-materialistic manner, then you could also argue there's some sort of bridge there that could be crossed for that particular kind of connection. Materially, some kind of artistic manifold. But without some kind of spiritual connection, there may always be something missing there. However, we as humans on the interpreting end of things may make the spiritual connections ourselves, so some kind of manifold discovery may not need that kind of connection to properly function. And it may! Who knows? In the end, all in all -- I think a lot of it looks at the open-ended discovery-and-low-label-self-dermination-and-assignment, if you're looking at (what I'd personally consider to be) the most interesting research all rattling around in there. :))))