995533

5 ms·

1.
by 995533 8y ago
Thanks. I think you are a correct exception to what I said. I should have known that using words like "nobody" would not go over well on HN (but tedious to type "a very large percentage"), despite that statement being a
2.
by 995533 8y ago
It was not possible to increase speed by getting more powerful compute?
3.
by 995533 8y ago
I would not retrain such a model on all data, just do online updates. Also I still think for that use case training times and latency are negligible (nobody cares or nobody notices any difference between training a BoW and bi-LSTM.) If you
4.
by 995533 8y ago
Nobody in business cares if you are doing proper AI or dumb curve fitting. What matters is the complexity (engineering debt) and performance (accuracy, robustness). Online learning, sample - and energy efficiency are unrelated to training
5.
by 995533 8y ago
If you are building large-scale systems that take weeks or months to train, you are at a point where you shouldn't care about this. Throw more compute at the problem, it will pay for itself. If we are talking days or hours: start param
6.
by 995533 8y ago
Nobody cares how long it takes to train a model. What matters is prediction speeds, which are comparable (and NLP less likely to require high frequency, where a few more milliseconds matters). Besides that, the accuracy gains are not margin
7.
by 995533 8y ago
Ibuprofen may cause ulcers, bleeding, or holes in the stomach or intestine.
8.
by 995533 8y ago
Something can be possible, while still technically not feasible. I agree our knowledge currently is lacking, but see no reasons why this will never catch up. There are fundamental limits on cognition. For one our universe is limited by the
9.
by 995533 8y ago
You are correct, in that AI experts may not be the best predictors for AGI. For one, they spend their lives working towards the goal of AGI, so it would require a huge amount of cognitive dissonance for them to say that AGI is impossible or
10.
by 995533 8y ago
Clearly, AGI-level intelligence is possible, because human brains exist. So unless you pose that a function has to rely on its materialization (there is something untouchably magic about biological neural networks, and intelligence is not m
11.
by 995533 8y ago
Shane Legg (co-founder DeepMind) and Marcus Hutter (Schmidhuber pedigree) defined machine intelligence in this canonical paper from 2007: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 > Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Mac
12.
by 995533 8y ago
Your reasoning does not follow. To see why, take something humans already clearly created: Flight. Kerosene-type jet fuel propulsion has not been observed in nature. It is flight nonetheless. Human flight is not as agile or energy-effective
13.
by 995533 8y ago
If AGI is possible, it already happened. If even AI experts put it a 100-1000 years out, where some human monkeys banging on digital typewriters could eventually create it, then, in the vastness of space, time, military contracts, alien int