"The idea that Deep Blue and Watson were not cases of Deep Learning is irrelevant. (You are effectively criticizing my topic headline rather than what I was getting at.)"
Maybe you shouldn't have a title that says one thing while intending something else? "But, Deep Learning is being used in visual recognition and my feeling is that since Watson did use machine learning I believe that it must have used something that had some correspondence to Deep Learning." Your feeling is wrong, Watson didn't have deep learning when it won jeopardy, it was only added recently http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539226/ibm-pushes-deep-learning-with-a-watson-upgrade/ There are many kinds of machine learning that are different in kind from deep learning. "The argument that they were just narrow AI is also irrelevant." No it isn't, because narrow AI.. like a machine specifically designed to play chess, will not be able to do something like play checkers, or drive a car, or write poetry. It will only be able to play chess. "There is no question that Watson and methodologies that are on par with contemporary Deep Learning have a wide variety of applications." You know duck tape has lots of applications too.. "So they are capable of some generalization." Again a chess playing machine can't do jack, but play chess, so too with a jeopardy playing machine. "Human beings, which represent the model of general intelligence, are not capable of figuring out many kinds of problems including many that computers can and will solve. " This is the first true thing you've said. "The problem is that these contemporary AI programs are not capable of integrated general intelligence and they are end up working within relatively narrow fields." Okay first of all please use proper grammar. Second of all what is this "integrated" general intelligence you speak of, please define, and please keep in mind I'm a very simple person who has difficulty with obscure terminology that is only understood in the mind of the speaker. "But to say that they are narrow as opposed to genera is not quite right." So if someone creates an AI for playing chess and only chess.. it isn't narrow because you believe there are other applications for it? This is just wrong. The only way it would have other applications is if you spent the time to some how map your other application onto a chess board. But that isn't the AI doing the generalizing, rather it is the user doing the generalizing. Narrow AI != General AI QED On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea that Deep Blue and Watson were not cases of Deep Learning is > irrelevant. (You are effectively criticizing my topic headline rather than > what I was getting at.) But, Deep Learning is being used in visual > recognition and my feeling is that since Watson did use machine learning I > believe that it must have used something that had some correspondence to > Deep Learning. > > The argument that they were just narrow AI is also irrelevant. There is no > question that Watson and methodologies that are on par with contemporary > Deep Learning have a wide variety of applications. So they are capable of > some generalization. Human beings, which represent the model of general > intelligence, are not capable of figuring out many kinds of problems > including many that computers can and will solve. The problem is that these > contemporary AI programs are not capable of integrated general intelligence > and they are end up working within relatively narrow fields. But to say > that they are narrow as opposed to genera is not quite right. > > Jim Bromer > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 8:31 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "winning at chess (IBM Deep Blue [doesn't use deep >> learning]), recognizing objects in pictures (Many Companies and >> different algorithms [some just use mechanical turk]) and winning at >> jeopardy (IBM Watson [didn't use deep learning when it won at jeopardy])." >> >> So none of those achievements used deep learning. Google's deep mind >> hasn't "solved intelligence" yet, so it would be a mistake to expect the >> kinds of advanced search capabilities you are thinking of. >> >> IBM did the Jeopardy grand challenge specifically because they saw >> Ken Jennings winning streak and the amount of attention it was attracting, >> and they thought if we create a software system that could do that we would >> get a great deal of attention, which I'm sure they thought would >> subsequently lead to big contracts. So yes it was in a way a publicity >> stunt from its inception. And since the algorithms were hand crafted for a >> single end (win at Jeopardy) of course it wasn't going to have a large >> impact on the field of AGI in general! Watson wasn't AGI, it was the waste >> of time/money narrow AI that the short sighted people in industry find easy >> to sell. >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The hype and the implied conquest of AI that winning at chess, >>> recognizing objects in pictures and winning at jeopardy seems to imply >>> just does not jive with the fact that search engine technology lacks >>> any noticeable intellect even though the computing power that Google, >>> Bing or IBM and thousands of other corporations possess is extremely >>> impressive. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > If industry has AI pretty well figured out then why are search engines >>> > so incapable of thinking outside the box? The conclusion looks >>> > inescapable to me. Yes there will be a day when someone makes a >>> > significant achievement while the rest of us might miss it completely >>> > but the idea that contemporary deep search (or some other AI method) >>> > has achieved the hype or the implied conquest that winning at chess >>> > and jeopardy seems to imply just does not jive with the computing >>> > power Google, Bing or IBM have. There is a substantial disconnect >>> > between low level -almost- human reasoning and deep learning. >>> > Jim Bromer >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> AGI >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
