A voice of reason at the BigNeuro panel: "we are very very far from human-level AI... maybe decades or centuries" - Yoshua Bengio #NIPS2017
-
-
Replying to @poolio
It's odd to hear "decades" as being considered "very very far". That sounds very close to me
4 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @jeremyphoward @poolio
I take it to mean "far enough it's beyond our horizon line" (which lies at best decades into the future)
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Decades is practically tomorrow!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But we can only make predictions when we have enough data and sufficiently reliable models. When it comes to "solving intelligence", we have basically no data about what it entails, and no way to model progress towards a goal we can't even define. We don't know what we don't know
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
We'll know it's getting closer when we start developing proper definitions of the goal and reasonable ways to model progress. Since we don't have that today, we know we're far, but we don't know anything more
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Sure good definitions would help, but will you keep saying “we know same as 2017” as 2027 AI automates a number of tasks not conceived possible now, because you haven’t developed better definitions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There is an ocean of difference between automating vertical tasks (what you can specify, you can automate), and "general" intelligence or "human-level" intelligence. Progress on the former does not entail the latter
-
-
Agreed not every step gets us closer to AGI, but I don’t think innocent until proven is appropriate here. We have to be Bayesian about this, definitions or not. Some of the DM work was evidence of AGI progress for many (myself included)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.