3 ms·

> The "6 or so" breakthroughs sounds about right to me. What’s your logic? Or his if you know it?

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
If you think about big areas of cognition like memory, planning, exploration, internal rewards, etc., it's conceivable that a breakthrough in each could lead to amazing results if they can be combined.
chubot 4y ago
Yeah he didn't elaborate on this in the interview, which I would have liked. I should amend my comment to say that "6 or so breakthroughs" sounds a lot more plausible to me than "1 breakthrough" or "just scaling", which you will see some people advocate, including in this thread. That's what I meant. I believe the latter is fundamentally mistaken and those people simply don't understand what they don't understand (intelligence). The views of Gary Marcus and Steven Pinker are closer to my own -- they have actually studied human cognition and are not just hackers and uninformed philosophers pontificating. Jeff Hawkins is another AI person from an unconventional background, and I respect him because he puts his money where his mouth is and has been funding his own research since early 2000's. I read his first book in 2006, and the most recent one a couple years ago. But I feel Jeff Hawkins has had the "one breakthrough" feeling for 10-15 years now. TBH I am not sure if they have even made what qualifies as one breakthrough in the last 10-15 years, and I don't mean that to be insulting, since it's obviously extremely difficult and beyond 99.99% of us, including me. I am not sure that even deep learning counts as a breakthrough. We will only know in retrospect. Based on Moravec's paradox, my opinion is there's a good chance that deep learning won't play any role in AGI, if and when it arrives. Some other mechanism could obviate the technique. So to me "6 or so breakthroughs" simply sounds more realistic than the current AI zeitgeist. But nobody really knows.
- p1esk 4y ago
  What do you mean exactly when you say “deep learning”?
  - telotortium 4y ago
    I'm guessing he means neural networks with a large number of layers.
    - p1esk 4y ago
      Oh, so something like a brain, yeah, that can’t possibly lead to AGI, right.

If you think about big areas of cognition like memory, planning, exploration, internal rewards, etc., it's conceivable that a breakthrough in each could lead to amazing results if they can be combined.

chubot 4y ago

Yeah he didn't elaborate on this in the interview, which I would have liked. I should amend my comment to say that "6 or so breakthroughs" sounds a lot more plausible to me than "1 breakthrough" or "just scaling", which you will see some people advocate, including in this thread. That's what I meant. I believe the latter is fundamentally mistaken and those people simply don't understand what they don't understand (intelligence). The views of Gary Marcus and Steven Pinker are closer to my own -- they have actually studied human cognition and are not just hackers and uninformed philosophers pontificating. Jeff Hawkins is another AI person from an unconventional background, and I respect him because he puts his money where his mouth is and has been funding his own research since early 2000's. I read his first book in 2006, and the most recent one a couple years ago. But I feel Jeff Hawkins has had the "one breakthrough" feeling for 10-15 years now. TBH I am not sure if they have even made what qualifies as one breakthrough in the last 10-15 years, and I don't mean that to be insulting, since it's obviously extremely difficult and beyond 99.99% of us, including me. I am not sure that even deep learning counts as a breakthrough. We will only know in retrospect. Based on Moravec's paradox, my opinion is there's a good chance that deep learning won't play any role in AGI, if and when it arrives. Some other mechanism could obviate the technique. So to me "6 or so breakthroughs" simply sounds more realistic than the current AI zeitgeist. But nobody really knows.

p1esk 4y ago
What do you mean exactly when you say “deep learning”?
- telotortium 4y ago
  I'm guessing he means neural networks with a large number of layers.
  - p1esk 4y ago
    Oh, so something like a brain, yeah, that can’t possibly lead to AGI, right.