3 ms·

An Open Letter to Larry Page on the Matter of Hiring Ray Kurzweil

15 points by iandanforth 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago
Nonsense. Why shouldn't AIs be possible in completely different environments than humans? The assumption that bodily experience is required is just wrong. Why shouldn't an AI be able to live on the internet, for example? Also, human brains are actually also just computers in a box with some wires to the outside world. We can not even be sure that the outside world exists, we only model it based on the signals that come through the wires.
- spullara 14y ago
  I think he is arguing that we have an existence proof of exactly one type of intelligence and to assume that we can skip understanding that one and create a new kind is pretty far fetched.
  - iandanforth 14y ago
    >> pretty far fetched. I would say 'more difficult than it needs to be.' But essentially correct.
- jfb 14y ago
  Assumes facts not in evidence.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    What do you mean?
- warmfuzzykitten 14y ago
  Agree. The arguments put forth are nothing but romantic appeals to human supremacy. First, that you can't have intelligence without meat. Second, that you can't have intelligence unless it learns by the same bumbling process that humans use. (An assertion that early intelligent behavior is inversely proportional to later intelligent behavior.) Third, "build a body"? Really? Please email your recipe for building a body that will exhibit intelligence without Darwinian selection across the entire universe to...I don't know...quack.com.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  I actually agree with you. They should be possible, and I'm sure they will exist. However in terms of building one, the only roadmap we have includes a body. To my mind it's not either/or, its now or later?
  - Tichy 14y ago
    It's certainly valid to get inspiration from the human mind. Still not sure that requires a body, though. I often wonder how a human brain would react if it were born into a completely different environment (for example some virtual reality). Also aren't there humans with brain damage and hence very limited sensory input? I suppose the human brain has some specializations hardwired into it, like face recognition, learning a language and so on (dealing with a body...). That is certainly something to think about. Anyway, I liked Jeff Hawkins book, I am sure you are doing good work at Numenta. And dealing with a body is one of the things some AI should eventually be able to do, so it doesn't hurt to follow that route.
jspthrowaway2 14y ago
He joined Google as Director of Engineering. He didn't join Google as Director of AI Research. Yes, we all read that Ray's intended project was what got Larry Page to hire him, but Director of Engineering over an organization of thousands of engineers is a task all its own. I can't imagine that Ray Kurzweil shows up to work in the morning and tinkers about with his pet project all day; running Google's entire engineering team is something most of us should recognize that we are not adequately prepared to do at this point in our lives. This entire letter just strikes me as in extremely poor taste. You disagree with Ray Kurzweil's views on AI, because they don't align with yours or your company's[1], so you write an open letter to Larry Page effectively saying that he hired the wrong guy and should have hired you? Very, very transparently self-serving. I realize the self-service was never written verbatim, but it is the subtext; what other purpose would there be to write this letter? "His AI won't work, mine will." I also have a very strong and violent distaste for anybody who tells me something won't work before even daring to try it on their own. The contrarian engineer, "oh, that will never work," often muttered in reply to using some piece of architecture he has no experience with. He never apologizes when it works, either. Who are you to say what's possible and impossible? Maybe Ray Kurzweil knows something you don't? Why don't we quietly commend a distinguished engineer and inventor with a decades-long career (undoubtedly, longer than this guy has been alive) for being offered a position worthy of his résumé and leave it at that, often-controversial views aside? Everybody gets caught up in Ray Kurzweil's futurist thinking and forgets that he invented some pretty pedestrian stuff that you and I rely upon daily. [1]: https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%20Embodied%20AI https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%... EDIT: Scott Draves corrected me on my assumption of what a GOOG Director of Engineering is, below. I'm quite wrong.
- geofft 14y ago
  How, at all, is that in poor taste? If you believe in something, believe it!
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    There's a difference between believing in something and explaining it, which I would have loved to read, and openly criticizing Larry Page's hiring decisions because you disagree with the hire's views. How would you feel if you got hired somewhere, it was a big enough event to make news, and I wrote an open letter saying "bummer you hired geofft; his views on database scaling will never work. Oh, by the way, I run a company that's doing cutting-edge research on database scaling. Glad my name's out there now!" It's just shitty and low-brow.
newobj 14y ago
Some letters are best left closed. "An Open Letter To..." is just short hand for "blog entry I wrote with link bait name drop".
- iandanforth 14y ago
  I admit to the tactic, but received extremely helpful criticism and rapid response. I do genuinely hope that Mr. Page reads the letter though.
rpm4321 14y ago
I'm very skeptical of this recent emphasis on the theory that our complete sensory experience has to be simulated (or replicated via robotics) in order for a strong AI to learn. All you need to do is read a bit about Helen Keller to know that language should be a sufficient window into our world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller
- iandanforth 14y ago
  I make the argument that 'some' of the sensory experience must be available and that interaction with the real world is crucial. To your point about Ms. Keller, I have used this example myself as to why robotics should focus more on the sensation of touch and it's why I commissioned the development of a low-cost etextile robotic skin from a brilliant designer/engineer at MIT. That project (rSkin) can be found here (http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-Source-Robot-Skin/ http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-Source-Robot-Skin...)
  - Harkins 14y ago
    Where did you make the argument? I see you making the claim, but there's nothing arguing it, no evidence. There's just the vague thought experiment about extracting signal from noise. To point it out another way: humans can't be intelligent because they are lacking in six senses that Martians have. It's that even richer experience that enables true intelligence; without these qualia and the vital marrow of the foundation of the core of the heart of really truly scotsmany work, humans can't be intellegent. Can you knock down this claim without knocking down yours as well?
thibauts 14y ago
Most importantly, building a machine that can really communicate with us without giving it a body is obviously a dead end. If the point for Ray is mastering language in AI, then I think Ian is right. Reading "Methaphors we live by" By George Lakoff really opened my mind on this subject. Mastering not only the forms of language, but the meaning, and so the concepts, requires an extensive amount of interaction with the world through a human body. Just think bout the development of a child that can't touch, hear, see, smell, or can't feel any emotion. What about his communication skills ? We do have exemples. It is an engineers dream that communication would be devoid of emotions, shared experience, and many other things fundamentally born from experience. We all know this to be false if we care to study a little about communication outside of the realm of engineering. AI may be possible without a human body, but if there is to be communication, then there is to be a body whatever its form, or a simple form of what we call a "self". In my (lacking) knowledge, embodied AI is the only branch of AI to have considered this deeply. Ian may be right. Maybe we rush to the conclusion without taking many things into account. Maybe this is the curse of a branch of CS that gave to much promises from the start. Then AI is probably too broad of a term. Some things in intelligence may be in our reach, some others not.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  If you haven't read it, it sounds like you would also enjoy 'Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning' (http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-Meaning/dp/0465028292 http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-Meaning/dp/0...) I haven't ready Metaphors we live by, I'll pick it up!

15 points by iandanforth 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago

Nonsense. Why shouldn't AIs be possible in completely different environments than humans? The assumption that bodily experience is required is just wrong. Why shouldn't an AI be able to live on the internet, for example? Also, human brains are actually also just computers in a box with some wires to the outside world. We can not even be sure that the outside world exists, we only model it based on the signals that come through the wires.

spullara 14y ago
I think he is arguing that we have an existence proof of exactly one type of intelligence and to assume that we can skip understanding that one and create a new kind is pretty far fetched.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  >> pretty far fetched. I would say 'more difficult than it needs to be.' But essentially correct.
jfb 14y ago
Assumes facts not in evidence.
- Tichy 14y ago
  What do you mean?
warmfuzzykitten 14y ago
Agree. The arguments put forth are nothing but romantic appeals to human supremacy. First, that you can't have intelligence without meat. Second, that you can't have intelligence unless it learns by the same bumbling process that humans use. (An assertion that early intelligent behavior is inversely proportional to later intelligent behavior.) Third, "build a body"? Really? Please email your recipe for building a body that will exhibit intelligence without Darwinian selection across the entire universe to...I don't know...quack.com.
iandanforth 14y ago
I actually agree with you. They should be possible, and I'm sure they will exist. However in terms of building one, the only roadmap we have includes a body. To my mind it's not either/or, its now or later?
- Tichy 14y ago
  It's certainly valid to get inspiration from the human mind. Still not sure that requires a body, though. I often wonder how a human brain would react if it were born into a completely different environment (for example some virtual reality). Also aren't there humans with brain damage and hence very limited sensory input? I suppose the human brain has some specializations hardwired into it, like face recognition, learning a language and so on (dealing with a body...). That is certainly something to think about. Anyway, I liked Jeff Hawkins book, I am sure you are doing good work at Numenta. And dealing with a body is one of the things some AI should eventually be able to do, so it doesn't hurt to follow that route.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

He joined Google as Director of Engineering. He didn't join Google as Director of AI Research. Yes, we all read that Ray's intended project was what got Larry Page to hire him, but Director of Engineering over an organization of thousands of engineers is a task all its own. I can't imagine that Ray Kurzweil shows up to work in the morning and tinkers about with his pet project all day; running Google's entire engineering team is something most of us should recognize that we are not adequately prepared to do at this point in our lives. This entire letter just strikes me as in extremely poor taste. You disagree with Ray Kurzweil's views on AI, because they don't align with yours or your company's[1], so you write an open letter to Larry Page effectively saying that he hired the wrong guy and should have hired you? Very, very transparently self-serving. I realize the self-service was never written verbatim, but it is the subtext; what other purpose would there be to write this letter? "His AI won't work, mine will." I also have a very strong and violent distaste for anybody who tells me something won't work before even daring to try it on their own. The contrarian engineer, "oh, that will never work," often muttered in reply to using some piece of architecture he has no experience with. He never apologizes when it works, either. Who are you to say what's possible and impossible? Maybe Ray Kurzweil knows something you don't? Why don't we quietly commend a distinguished engineer and inventor with a decades-long career (undoubtedly, longer than this guy has been alive) for being offered a position worthy of his résumé and leave it at that, often-controversial views aside? Everybody gets caught up in Ray Kurzweil's futurist thinking and forgets that he invented some pretty pedestrian stuff that you and I rely upon daily. [1]: https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%20Embodied%20AI https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%... EDIT: Scott Draves corrected me on my assumption of what a GOOG Director of Engineering is, below. I'm quite wrong.

geofft 14y ago
How, at all, is that in poor taste? If you believe in something, believe it!
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  There's a difference between believing in something and explaining it, which I would have loved to read, and openly criticizing Larry Page's hiring decisions because you disagree with the hire's views. How would you feel if you got hired somewhere, it was a big enough event to make news, and I wrote an open letter saying "bummer you hired geofft; his views on database scaling will never work. Oh, by the way, I run a company that's doing cutting-edge research on database scaling. Glad my name's out there now!" It's just shitty and low-brow.

newobj 14y ago

Some letters are best left closed. "An Open Letter To..." is just short hand for "blog entry I wrote with link bait name drop".

iandanforth 14y ago
I admit to the tactic, but received extremely helpful criticism and rapid response. I do genuinely hope that Mr. Page reads the letter though.

rpm4321 14y ago

I'm very skeptical of this recent emphasis on the theory that our complete sensory experience has to be simulated (or replicated via robotics) in order for a strong AI to learn. All you need to do is read a bit about Helen Keller to know that language should be a sufficient window into our world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

iandanforth 14y ago
I make the argument that 'some' of the sensory experience must be available and that interaction with the real world is crucial. To your point about Ms. Keller, I have used this example myself as to why robotics should focus more on the sensation of touch and it's why I commissioned the development of a low-cost etextile robotic skin from a brilliant designer/engineer at MIT. That project (rSkin) can be found here (http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-Source-Robot-Skin/ http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-Source-Robot-Skin...)
- Harkins 14y ago
  Where did you make the argument? I see you making the claim, but there's nothing arguing it, no evidence. There's just the vague thought experiment about extracting signal from noise. To point it out another way: humans can't be intelligent because they are lacking in six senses that Martians have. It's that even richer experience that enables true intelligence; without these qualia and the vital marrow of the foundation of the core of the heart of really truly scotsmany work, humans can't be intellegent. Can you knock down this claim without knocking down yours as well?

thibauts 14y ago

Most importantly, building a machine that can really communicate with us without giving it a body is obviously a dead end. If the point for Ray is mastering language in AI, then I think Ian is right. Reading "Methaphors we live by" By George Lakoff really opened my mind on this subject. Mastering not only the forms of language, but the meaning, and so the concepts, requires an extensive amount of interaction with the world through a human body. Just think bout the development of a child that can't touch, hear, see, smell, or can't feel any emotion. What about his communication skills ? We do have exemples. It is an engineers dream that communication would be devoid of emotions, shared experience, and many other things fundamentally born from experience. We all know this to be false if we care to study a little about communication outside of the realm of engineering. AI may be possible without a human body, but if there is to be communication, then there is to be a body whatever its form, or a simple form of what we call a "self". In my (lacking) knowledge, embodied AI is the only branch of AI to have considered this deeply. Ian may be right. Maybe we rush to the conclusion without taking many things into account. Maybe this is the curse of a branch of CS that gave to much promises from the start. Then AI is probably too broad of a term. Some things in intelligence may be in our reach, some others not.

iandanforth 14y ago
If you haven't read it, it sounds like you would also enjoy 'Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning' (http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-Meaning/dp/0465028292 http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-Meaning/dp/0...) I haven't ready Metaphors we live by, I'll pick it up!