argonaut

55 ms·

541.
by argonaut 10y ago
There is only a little evidence current image classification models outperform humans. The 5.1% number is just the number from one grad student who went through some ImageNet images himself - e.g. a single blog post ( http://karpa
542.
by argonaut 10y ago
What if that point is 20 years from now? What if every time Ford/GM/Toyota substantially changes the look of their cars, your classifier no longer recognizes them because all your data only has the old models in it. That's wh
543.
by argonaut 10y ago
You need humans to label those "millions of experiences." The bottleneck is not raw video. You need humans to label that data. Otherwise it's useless.
544.
by argonaut 10y ago
Object detection is considered a more difficult problem than image classification in the vision community. So I'm not sure what the point is there.
545.
by argonaut 10y ago
We're talking about 1980, not 2016. I didn't say they're the same relative economic superpower today than they were decades ago. If I wanted to be facetious (this is obviously ridiculous), I would say that the solution to you
546.
by argonaut 10y ago
And because of WW2 America accelerated out of the Great Depression and into an even larger and more dominant global economic superpower - an economic superpower that fueled the middle class and all the working blue collar jobs that Trump
547.
by argonaut 10y ago
"Google Glass failed not because it wasn't ready. It WAS ready product-wise AND technology-wise"
548.
by argonaut 10y ago
This is just speculation, however. (Speculation about captioning neural nets and the direction of evolution and edge detectors)
549.
by argonaut 10y ago
Which is precisely why false analogies are not helpful.
550.
by argonaut 10y ago
To be fair he claims to have developed the system in 1980 and then used it subsequently to predict elections. But you're right that the data is noisy and small. And he did get it wrong in 2000 by predicting an Al Gore victory. So 7&#x2
551.
by argonaut 10y ago
Notwithstanding the fact that this is just his theory, Tomasso Pogio mostly does not seem to disagree. Reading the summary of that link, it appears he asserts the ventral stream (one of two streams) is well explained by convolutions. So h
552.
by argonaut 10y ago
Most people don't realize this. Most people will just read popular science articles in the media. They will never read discussions on HN/Reddit/Twitter.
553.
by argonaut 10y ago
quite brain like* * for just two layers of the visual cortex, V1 and V2 (out of 6 layers). But nevermind for any other brain regions, and never-mind about CNNs applied to speech, robotics, NLP, finance... basically any non-vision domain.
554.
by argonaut 10y ago
I can't speak to AlphaGo specifically, but these parameters (depth and width) are typically chosen through trial and error. People joke about "graduate student descent" but it's true. There are empirical rules of thumb t
555.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yeah. Those are all really hard problems. Visual SLAM is far from solved, especially if since this is only monocular SLAM. And even if he did solve that to a pretty decent level (which is already multiple top-PhD theses worth of research),
556.
by argonaut 10y ago
Not necessarily. One could imagine that with far superior voice interaction technology and display (rather than a tiny screen in the corner of your vision and cruddy voice interaction), that would open up Google Glass to substantially more
557.
A Japanese Billionaire’s Robot Dreams Are on Hold(bloomberg.com)
2 points by argonaut 10y ago|0 comments
558.
by argonaut 10y ago
If the old users leave, then yes, there are continually new users to regrab.
559.
by argonaut 10y ago
Also, the entire deep learning academia is already extremely open and transparent with publishing.
560.
by argonaut 10y ago
It is not "similar tech" at all. Yes, both approaches involve some machine learning (which is a huge field). But Cruise's approach is similar to Google/Uber's approach in that it relies on LIDAR. I'd assume (bu
561.
by argonaut 10y ago
That's the very definition of mercurial. In 8 years it'll be a new cohort with new tastes.
562.
by argonaut 10y ago
I'm bullish too, but any comparisons to Facebook are lazy. Snapchat and Facebook are completely orthogonal (the closer competition is Instagram, owned by FB, and Snapchat, but even then I would argue it is lazy to say they are direct c
563.
by argonaut 10y ago
"Not in the context of this thread" isn't a good excuse. They are the exception to the context of this thread. 120k is very much an angel-like investment.
564.
by argonaut 10y ago
YC is seed stage - they invest 120k. That's what seed stages have traditionally been. We just see so many $1-4 million "seed stage" investments nowadays that we're all used to it.
565.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yeah I think this is a good use case. But is that going to be a huge business for Microsoft/Google/Amazon? There are serious companies (like Netflix) that put their entire infrastructure on cloud platforms. If the concerns the OP
566.
by argonaut 10y ago
That may be true, but the white Appalachian can learn to switch accents/mannerisms (code switch). A black urbanite (who may already have had to learn to code switch, depending on where they grew up) can't change their skin color.
567.
by argonaut 10y ago
Based on the fact that there hasn't been any known AI encouter during human written history, that we haven't found any AI artifact of such an event, even in a distant past, .... , and that anyway, if an AI civ is advanced enough t
568.
by argonaut 10y ago
Let's say in 2030 the aliens invade and it works. Let's also assume they're 10000x more powerful than wetware (a highly conservative estimate?). That means in about 1 yr they should be able to attack us as effectively as 30 y
569.
by argonaut 10y ago
"If we don't even know much about our universe, what makes you think that an alien invasion is a century or more away?" Yet I don't see us losing our heads over the chance of an alien invasion.
570.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yes, because otherwise they'll just take all the other housing, since tech workers are paid more.

More ›