Agreed. And therein I’m a fan of @rodneyabrooks notion of intelligence without representationhttps://twitter.com/plinz/status/938997804634013696 …
-
-
Replying to @Grady_Booch @rodneyabrooks
How so? I have not understood how a function can be implemented without representation, especially if it is one that allows us to imagine and dream. It appears that the strong embodiment hypothesis was wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @rodneyabrooks
Actually, I think the strong embodiment principle is essential to it: in isolation, intelligence can evolve only so far
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Have you read his seminal paper? http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @rodneyabrooks
Sure, and I also agree that the approach of symbolic AI was wrong. Yet time has shown that Rodney Brooks and Rolf Pfeiffer were wrong too, their embodied robots did not scale towards intelligence, and destroyed the minds of half a generation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @rodneyabrooks
I’m note sure they exactly destroyed minds, though :-)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @rodneyabrooks
By the way, he also broke the epistemology of the brilliant David Chapman, who consequently lost his belief in the possibility of AI and became a Buddhist (he is mentioned in the 1987 paper's acknowledgements). This alone was a tremendous loss.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Question: what researchers do you find most promising at the moment?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Goodfellow's GANs hold an important insight about the nature of representation. Karpathy and a large array of others do great work but from here it seems to be mostly engineering.
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.