>There is no mystery w.r.t how deep learning/etc work I.M.O.
Good, there shouldn't be. Being mysterious doesn't make something better, and simplicity is desirable.
>Frankly, there is nothing to understand ... NNs/etc are distributed optimizers guided by partial objective information. The resultant network/weights are a spaghetti jumble of 'whatever gets the right output out the other end'.
Basically yes. But that's not only incredibly effective, it's quite possibly how real brains work too. A lot of people do believe it is a path to AGI.
>You're throwing a bunch of 'agents' at a solution space and having them gradually combine their results to a final solution. This was previously known as constraint optimization before it got the silicon valley treatment of buzzwords :
That's not an accurate description at all, there are no "agents". In fact your whole description of NNs sounds off.
And backprop wasn't invented or named in silicon valley. In fact it's been around since the 80's. But whatever.
>Strong A.I is being developed far from such thinking and is a totally different animal. People who work in this space are necessarily guarded and un open as there is a lack of appreciation, value, and funding for their 'audacious' efforts.
Every "AGI" project is a bunch of pseudoscience. They have no idea how to build an intelligence. They have no idea how the brain works. They have no results to show with their algorithms, they aren't beating benchmarks. The theories are always vague and ad hoc and include a million special cases to make their systems do anything.
Good, there shouldn't be. Being mysterious doesn't make something better, and simplicity is desirable.
>Frankly, there is nothing to understand ... NNs/etc are distributed optimizers guided by partial objective information. The resultant network/weights are a spaghetti jumble of 'whatever gets the right output out the other end'.
Basically yes. But that's not only incredibly effective, it's quite possibly how real brains work too. A lot of people do believe it is a path to AGI.
>You're throwing a bunch of 'agents' at a solution space and having them gradually combine their results to a final solution. This was previously known as constraint optimization before it got the silicon valley treatment of buzzwords :
That's not an accurate description at all, there are no "agents". In fact your whole description of NNs sounds off.
And backprop wasn't invented or named in silicon valley. In fact it's been around since the 80's. But whatever.
>Strong A.I is being developed far from such thinking and is a totally different animal. People who work in this space are necessarily guarded and un open as there is a lack of appreciation, value, and funding for their 'audacious' efforts.
Every "AGI" project is a bunch of pseudoscience. They have no idea how to build an intelligence. They have no idea how the brain works. They have no results to show with their algorithms, they aren't beating benchmarks. The theories are always vague and ad hoc and include a million special cases to make their systems do anything.