4 ms·

No the majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward it's just the vocal m

No the majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward it's just the vocal minority claiming it not to be true for nothing more than purely financial interests.

ghaff 4y ago
The autonomous driving question is an interesting one. It's probably some combination of techno-optimism, naive extrapolation of deep learning advances over a fairly short period of time, and--yes--at least some degree of a massive game of topper because everyone else was feeding at the funding trough and saying things were right around the corner. How much of each doubtless depends on the person. And a lot of other people listened to the vocal "experts" and assumed that they must know what they're talking about.
mindcrime 4y ago
No the majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward (playing Devil's Advocate here) That doesn't even make sense. Correct way forward to what exactly? I guess if you assume that the only valid goal of AI research is to eventually achieve AGI then you might have a sort-of valid point. Except that nobody "knows" that deep learning isn't the way forward to AGI. Nobody "knows" that it is either. But all of that said, current deep learning research has absolutely created systems that do amazing things and create tremendous value for society. So in what sense can we say that it "isn't the correct way forward"? Do you suggest abandoning DL completely? If so, in favor of what? (OK "Devil's Advocate" portion over) My own position has long been that "just deep learning" might be sufficient to achieve AGI if we eventually make networks that are big enough to support the right kind of emergent behavior. But I've also long been skeptical that this is the most direct or efficient path to AGI. I'm an advocate of hybrid symbolic/sub-symbolic systems that integrate deep learning with other AI strategies.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > My own position has long been that "just deep learning" might be sufficient to achieve AGI as soon as you say agi, you've lost the plot.
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    > as soon as you say agi, you've lost the plot. What plot? Would you care to elaborate? Hard to imagine how that term could matter. It's just short-hand for some "thing" that people care to talk about. I'm not interested in quibbling over definitions or whatever. Nor am I interested in the kind of discussions that get all wrapped in what "general" means and reduce to arguing that even humans don't have "general intelligence", etc. To me, going down those rabbit-holes is really "losing the plot."
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      AGI is what someone says when they want to sound like they're talking about AI, but don't know anything about AI, and still feel the need to sound as if they're wearing a lab coat. It's like when you're in a room where a bunch of people who can't name a medical school are trying to explain to each other what r0 means in a discussion that they believe is about COVID. It's a red flag.
      - rolenthedeep 4y ago
        You do realize that they were trying to have a rational discussion here, right? They're pretty unambiguously asking for information and trying to understand your viewpoint. If AGI is the wrong term to use then either get over it, or explain what term they should use. Particularly when they ask you to explain why the term is wrong. The idea of a self aware AI is a little difficult for most people to define. Even if the term AGI isn't accurate, don't you think it's important that people be able to discuss the topic? Especially when those people are quite explicitly trying to learn more about it.
        JohnHaugeland 4y ago
space_fountain 4y ago
What makes you say that? There's a vocal faction I've heard who essentially say that statistics can never be intelligent. I don't understand the argument. I think it's grounded on feeling like there should be something somewhere in the complicated system that you can point at and say it understands, but just like the old chinese room thought experiment I think the question of what it means to understand isn't the important one. Practically it's hard to deny that a system of approximation run statistically can do more or less the same things we can, because that appears to be what we are. I think there's the much more defensible position that current techniques can't scale up to general artificial intelligence. That's pretty clear because we've already had to change details of model architecture a lot to get the models to where they are now
canjobear 4y ago
> majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward Do you have a reference for this? It’s not my experience.

ghaff 4y ago

The autonomous driving question is an interesting one. It's probably some combination of techno-optimism, naive extrapolation of deep learning advances over a fairly short period of time, and--yes--at least some degree of a massive game of topper because everyone else was feeding at the funding trough and saying things were right around the corner. How much of each doubtless depends on the person. And a lot of other people listened to the vocal "experts" and assumed that they must know what they're talking about.

mindcrime 4y ago

No the majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward (playing Devil's Advocate here) That doesn't even make sense. Correct way forward to what exactly? I guess if you assume that the only valid goal of AI research is to eventually achieve AGI then you might have a sort-of valid point. Except that nobody "knows" that deep learning isn't the way forward to AGI. Nobody "knows" that it is either. But all of that said, current deep learning research has absolutely created systems that do amazing things and create tremendous value for society. So in what sense can we say that it "isn't the correct way forward"? Do you suggest abandoning DL completely? If so, in favor of what? (OK "Devil's Advocate" portion over) My own position has long been that "just deep learning" might be sufficient to achieve AGI if we eventually make networks that are big enough to support the right kind of emergent behavior. But I've also long been skeptical that this is the most direct or efficient path to AGI. I'm an advocate of hybrid symbolic/sub-symbolic systems that integrate deep learning with other AI strategies.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> My own position has long been that "just deep learning" might be sufficient to achieve AGI as soon as you say agi, you've lost the plot.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  > as soon as you say agi, you've lost the plot. What plot? Would you care to elaborate? Hard to imagine how that term could matter. It's just short-hand for some "thing" that people care to talk about. I'm not interested in quibbling over definitions or whatever. Nor am I interested in the kind of discussions that get all wrapped in what "general" means and reduce to arguing that even humans don't have "general intelligence", etc. To me, going down those rabbit-holes is really "losing the plot."
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    AGI is what someone says when they want to sound like they're talking about AI, but don't know anything about AI, and still feel the need to sound as if they're wearing a lab coat. It's like when you're in a room where a bunch of people who can't name a medical school are trying to explain to each other what r0 means in a discussion that they believe is about COVID. It's a red flag.
    - rolenthedeep 4y ago
      You do realize that they were trying to have a rational discussion here, right? They're pretty unambiguously asking for information and trying to understand your viewpoint. If AGI is the wrong term to use then either get over it, or explain what term they should use. Particularly when they ask you to explain why the term is wrong. The idea of a self aware AI is a little difficult for most people to define. Even if the term AGI isn't accurate, don't you think it's important that people be able to discuss the topic? Especially when those people are quite explicitly trying to learn more about it.
      - JohnHaugeland 4y ago

space_fountain 4y ago

What makes you say that? There's a vocal faction I've heard who essentially say that statistics can never be intelligent. I don't understand the argument. I think it's grounded on feeling like there should be something somewhere in the complicated system that you can point at and say it understands, but just like the old chinese room thought experiment I think the question of what it means to understand isn't the important one. Practically it's hard to deny that a system of approximation run statistically can do more or less the same things we can, because that appears to be what we are. I think there's the much more defensible position that current techniques can't scale up to general artificial intelligence. That's pretty clear because we've already had to change details of model architecture a lot to get the models to where they are now

canjobear 4y ago

> majority of researchers in the field who have been researching for decades already know deep learning isn't the correct way forward Do you have a reference for this? It’s not my experience.