"Ten years from now we will conclude that deep reinforcement learning was overrated in the late 2010s, and that many other important research avenues were neglected."
https://www.wired.com/story/deepminds-losses-future-artificial-intelligence/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare … via @WIRED
-
-
I believe statements like thais one are stupid, arrogant, and designed to raise controversy. Susbtitute 'will' for 'may' and then I will pay attention.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Not at all. A diversified portfolio completely makes sense, and
@GaryMarcus has delivered many effective critiques in the past. For eg. see https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/the-deepest-problem-with-deep-learning-91c5991f5695 … and especially https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.006311 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @curiouswavefn @sbembenek18 and
Of course a diversified portfolio makes sense! But then it is a trivial statement: "diversify, it does not matter in which area". This applies to ANY technology in development. In 10 years we will look at 3-D printing and think we were stupid not to look carefully at alternatives
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adrian_roitberg @curiouswavefn and
Going all in on transistors wasn’t a bad idea. Ditto IC’s and computers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GaryMarcus @curiouswavefn and
With the benefits of 20/20 hindsight, of course ! Before they figure out solid state transistors, was it clear that one should go all out on that and disregard other ways (not sure if there were any other options in that case).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They were very specific about the problems they were trying to solve (faster/less noise/more signal density), and saw quickly how transistors might solve them. They were not certain of a specific solution in advance of investigation. Highly recommended book: The Idea Factory.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.