michael_nielsen

Easy take: calling linear algebra “quantum physics” and “artificial intelligence” is hype. Deeper: the huge influx of physicists into AI has produced an intellectual monoculture that isn’t capable of addressing key problems in the field.https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/1181437300414275584 …

Most of the crankiest people I know about the culture of AI are physicists-turned-AI people. I doubt that's a reason for a monoculture; seems quite the reverse, they're usually the ones saying "hey, fiddling with hyperparameters is the wrong thing to be doing..."

Yes, and "let's look at the energy surface" leads to insights that vaguely-motivated tweaking can't. (Such tweaking being an approach CS-educated folks are liable to fall into.) But it doesn't lead to the insights that understanding mechanism-domain interactions can.

This seems very different from the original assertion, now more like "Are ideas adapted from physics sufficient to solve the main problems of AI?" Seems the answer is "obviously not", though of course exploring ideas from many different domains seems likely a good thing.

Not sure I follow; what is the relevant difference between this formulation and what I said? I was suggesting that physicists mostly only draw on methods and analogies from physics, and (useful as those are) they aren't able to address many of the key problems in AI.