argonaut

90 ms·

811.
by argonaut 10y ago
Developing new or improved models.
812.
by argonaut 10y ago
Sure, the brain uses the concept of abstraction, but that is so far away from supporting the assertion that "that's how the brain works."
813.
by argonaut 10y ago
Deep learning for robotics is tremendously harder than you're making it out to be. It's not magic pixie dust you just sprinkle over something. The state of the art in physical robot deep learning is robots learning a single simple
814.
by argonaut 10y ago
That isn't "doing machine learning," for the same reason that web developers aren't "operating systems programmers" (even though they use operating systems and need to know some OS concepts).
815.
by argonaut 10y ago
ML involves math. That does not mean it's "applied research," though. The math is mostly at the undergraduate-college-level, and is mostly applied math - except for very theoretical ML/statistics which a practitioner can
816.
by argonaut 10y ago
A few I noted: Neural nets don't emulate the brain. NIPS is not an obscure conference, it's been the top ML conference for decades (sure, it's an obscure conference to laymen, but so is pretty much every science publication c
817.
by argonaut 10y ago
1) The gap between the Bay Area and other cities is more of a step function than a smooth curve. 2) You don't have to live in SF proper.
818.
by argonaut 10y ago
This makes no sense. This is just unsubstantiated speculation right now. There is no reason to believe that dumb AGI will hardware-scale to smart AGI for free. In fact most machine learning algorithms have diminishing (logarithmic) returns
819.
by argonaut 10y ago
You should start with an intro calculus class (e.g. Calculus I). Andrew Ng's Coursera course teaches you the necessary linear algebra. After his Coursera course it'll be worthwhile to take a linear algebra class.
820.
by argonaut 10y ago
1) Is exactly what this paper is addressing. The fact that their is philosophical ambiguity is precisely why these are problems, and not solved already.
821.
by argonaut 10y ago
You've omitted the huge, overwhelmingly outweighing disadvantages of intelligence in machines, which is that they don't work . Given that research progress is incremental, there really isn't reason to believe we will jump
822.
by argonaut 10y ago
This is speculation. We don't even know what general intelligence on a computer will look like, therefore we don't know what constraints there will be, therefore it is speculative to say there won't be constraints on exponent
823.
by argonaut 10y ago
I'm pointing out that this is all speculative and dangerously close to science-fiction.
824.
by argonaut 10y ago
The barrier for entry for an alien invasion does exist, though it is currently undefined, since we don't know what it is. The reason I say that is there are at least 1 bloodthirsty species running around this galaxy (and many more if y
825.
by argonaut 10y ago
Let me elaborate. It is easy easy easy to nitpick and find holes in someone's proposals, someone's problem statements, and someone's goals in life. Statements are adding noise and less than nothing of value if they just c
826.
by argonaut 10y ago
A witty saying proves nothing. See my reply to the other comment.
827.
by argonaut 10y ago
The solution is this: call the police and arrest the malicious developers.
828.
by argonaut 10y ago
You are mistaking an AGI for an artificial superintelligence (I might also add that the very concept of superintelligence is pure speculation - basic AGI at least can be grounded in replication of human brains). The first AGI will be closer
829.
by argonaut 10y ago
You're dismissing the paper for not asking the right questions, but you don't propose any questions that you think are better. > The hard part is actually figuring out what you care about, particularly in the context of a truly
830.
by argonaut 10y ago
Saying AGI is an eventuality is as speculative as saying an alien invasion is an eventuality. We have evidence of intelligent species (ourselves) invading. We also have evidence spaceflight is possible.
831.
by argonaut 10y ago
Humans can learn how to figure our the score , can learn the state/action space itself , and can learn new games without external intervention . All those things are hard-coded into a system where you just string together a bunch of
832.
by argonaut 10y ago
If you're agreeing with my original assertion that household robot tasks are more general and more difficult than atari games, great.
833.
by argonaut 10y ago
If you group the agents together and call it a single "general" agent, the research community (and pretty much everyone else) will call you out on your BS. That's the difference.
834.
by argonaut 10y ago
Atari game agents are trivial if you hard-code / do traditional brute-force search AI because there is no noise in observation and no noise in control, and the control is very simple (usually just up down left right, no torques or an
835.
by argonaut 10y ago
This isn't a particularly meaningful issue. The problem you describe of falling into the trap of brute-force optimizing a narrow task also applies to the Atari games. In fact it applies even more-so: it would be trivial for a lot of HN
836.
by argonaut 10y ago
It's an Internet thing. The Donald Trump subreddit on Reddit is extremely popular, I'm sure a bunch of them have moved over to this thread for a moment.
837.
by argonaut 10y ago
Look, I get that Trump is saying "Unfair rulings, caused by being Mexican." But this is no different from "He is Mexican, which causes unfair rulings." It's logically equivalent. If you said "She is dumb becaus
838.
by argonaut 10y ago
All you've repeated is that they're not the same. You haven't actually given any reasons why this is the case.
839.
by argonaut 10y ago
The irony is that dropout is increasingly and often viewed as unnecessary in recent deep learning work.
840.
by argonaut 10y ago
You're mistaken, DeepMind uses a different agent for each game. What's the same across games is the learning method. But the model is trained separately for each game.

More ›