3 ms·

Rodney Brooks' deep learning predictions have not aged well. For example, in his 2018 blog post (http://rodneybrooks.com/forai-steps-toward-super-intelligence-i

Rodney Brooks' deep learning predictions have not aged well. For example, in his 2018 blog post (http://rodneybrooks.com/forai-steps-toward-super-intelligence-i-how-we-got-here/ http://rodneybrooks.com/forai-steps-toward-super-intelligenc...), he rates various approaches from 1-3 (with 3 being the best). Neural nets scored: Composition: 1 Grounding: 3 Spatial: 1 Sentience: 1 Ambiguity: 2 At that time, the potential of neural nets was already very clear. He also predicted that by 2020 we'll have popular press stories that the era of Deep Learning is over and that by 2021 VCs will figure out that for an investment to pay off there needs to be something more than "X + Deep Learning".

p-e-w 3y ago
I'll let you in on a secret: There aren't actually any "AI experts". There are machine learning experts, that is, people whose expertise lies in designing and analyzing systems that perform (semi-)automatic inference on data. But nobody can be an expert on "artificial intelligence", because we don't know what that word really means. We don't even know what intelligence really is. We have no idea how the human mind works. We don't understand emergence, at all, which is why we continue to be surprised when it happens. So it shouldn't come as a shock when eminent figures commonly labeled "AI experts" make predictions that turn out to be fundamentally and embarrassingly wrong in a very short timeframe: They're just talking out of their behinds, like everyone else.
- xvilka 3y ago
  > We have no idea how the human mind works. True, but we already know the so called "neural networks" that many computer scientists believe are how brain works aren't even close. They are all based on half-a-century old concept of neuron that was debunked many times over, experimentally by real neuroscientists.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    That's correct, but it doesn't mean artificial neural networks cannot achieve intelligence, or even superintelligence. The fact that the human brain doesn't work like that doesn't automatically imply that (structurally) simpler models are fundamentally less capable.

p-e-w 3y ago

I'll let you in on a secret: There aren't actually any "AI experts". There are machine learning experts, that is, people whose expertise lies in designing and analyzing systems that perform (semi-)automatic inference on data. But nobody can be an expert on "artificial intelligence", because we don't know what that word really means. We don't even know what intelligence really is. We have no idea how the human mind works. We don't understand emergence, at all, which is why we continue to be surprised when it happens. So it shouldn't come as a shock when eminent figures commonly labeled "AI experts" make predictions that turn out to be fundamentally and embarrassingly wrong in a very short timeframe: They're just talking out of their behinds, like everyone else.

xvilka 3y ago
> We have no idea how the human mind works. True, but we already know the so called "neural networks" that many computer scientists believe are how brain works aren't even close. They are all based on half-a-century old concept of neuron that was debunked many times over, experimentally by real neuroscientists.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  That's correct, but it doesn't mean artificial neural networks cannot achieve intelligence, or even superintelligence. The fact that the human brain doesn't work like that doesn't automatically imply that (structurally) simpler models are fundamentally less capable.