3 ms·

I dont mind people preparing data to build intelligent machines -- I mind what data they are preparing, and subsequently, what their claims about these machines

I dont mind people preparing data to build intelligent machines -- I mind what data they are preparing, and subsequently, what their claims about these machines are. If you can build a hand to grasp objects, and train its substructure to grasp this-way-and-that -- fine. So long as it can, in the end, also train itself... as we all do when we type. Nature provides something to bootstrap learning, but it isnt "data" in the sense in which ML requires data. It isnt relevant, quantified, premeasured. The "data" nature provides is in our biochemistry .. how we react to our environment, etc. If AI research can produce an intelligence which is able to formulate the very terms of problems it wishes to solve, great. I dont see "summarising the solution" as a strategy which is event in the ballpack.

mannykannot 5y ago
To be more specific, do you regard the data AlphaGo Zero was initialized with as being relevant, quantified, and premeasured to the point that no learning occurred between then and its defeat of expert players? I don't think the data they had as they learned to become experts was any less relevant, quantified, and premeasured - and quite possibly more so, if they read about tactics and strategy in the game. While I agree that nature's data is less relevant, quantified, and premeasured than what current ML feeds on, I don't see that as establishing that there is a relevant qualitative distinction that renders this divide unbridgeable in principle. Every organism that senses its environment is processing data. With regard to formulating the very terms of problems it wishes to solve, I have no difficulty in seeing that this has not been achieved yet, and personally, I don't expect it any time soon. At the same time, you seem to be very close to saying that no artificial system could do this because its goals are always, in some sense, those of its creators. To be clear, I would regard such a position as mostly avoiding the issues.

mannykannot 5y ago

To be more specific, do you regard the data AlphaGo Zero was initialized with as being relevant, quantified, and premeasured to the point that no learning occurred between then and its defeat of expert players? I don't think the data they had as they learned to become experts was any less relevant, quantified, and premeasured - and quite possibly more so, if they read about tactics and strategy in the game. While I agree that nature's data is less relevant, quantified, and premeasured than what current ML feeds on, I don't see that as establishing that there is a relevant qualitative distinction that renders this divide unbridgeable in principle. Every organism that senses its environment is processing data. With regard to formulating the very terms of problems it wishes to solve, I have no difficulty in seeing that this has not been achieved yet, and personally, I don't expect it any time soon. At the same time, you seem to be very close to saying that no artificial system could do this because its goals are always, in some sense, those of its creators. To be clear, I would regard such a position as mostly avoiding the issues.