4 ms·
Are you thinking that if we can do (say) a worm (with DL), then more and bigger DL will get us to a dog, and then to a person? Humans generally seem prone to t
by drpixie 5y ago
Are you thinking that if we can do (say) a worm (with DL), then more and bigger DL will get us to a dog, and then to a person? Humans generally seem prone to the "X is good so more X" is better fallacy - Gary is saying that X (DL) can only get us so far, and we'll need X+Y and likely +Z+... to make real progress.
- agnosticmantis 5y agoI actually think if we could have worm-level AI that’d already be pretty amazing in itself, even if the next level requires more than just scaling. Also, I wonder if sometimes people may be talking past each other in this debate. For example, I’m pretty sure (someone like) Yann LeCun considers worm-level AI already an ambitious and worthy goal per se. So would it be a relevant criticism to remind him (correctly) that human-level AI may require symbols? (For what it’s worth, I agree with Gary Marcus and disagree with DL maximalists, while also believing what DL has achieved is nothing short of amazing. Just saying people may have different goals but call it AI nevertheless.)