outsideline

> They are the first who have a machine learn to solve problems that require memory.

Incorrect. It was named a Neural (Turing) machine for a reason. Maybe people should go back and dust off the white papers from the 70s like those who are borrowing from that era and respectfully giving credit where credit is due.

They do great work and they are making great progress in Artificial Intelligence. Many people are. Everything is a stepping stone. It serves no good to over-hype one person's stones over another's or ignore/downplay where they were inspired from. Notable visionaries of a past time were visionaries because they detailed the depths of their thinking and centered on the hows/whys. It seems it is fashionable now-a-days to do the exact opposite. This is to a disservice to learning and progress.

The whole point of the human brain is parallel processing. Extra-cellular chemical Gradients function the same way in the human brain and serve the same purposes. Take a look at the papers I linked.

> I don't know if they are copied or not from nature (doesnt look like).

Extra-cellular chemical Gradients. I linked to white papers that explain how memory is stored in them and shared across neurons. This is how it works in nature and biology.

They named their approach 'Synthetic Gradients'. An artificial form of the biological Gradient that is decoupled and lies outside of a neuron. They are clearly giving credit to nature.

They and many other people are improving mankind. Many others can improve mankind if there was less hype and more of a focus on where the ideas originated.

That was my point..

The behavior of people regarding selective 'hype' is one of the big reasons why a tremendous amount of deeply functional work that centers on hard intuitions and ideas for this area will remain closed source when a real break is made.

Enjoy the hype train I guess... They're operating on another level than anyone else.

The brain's architecture is laid bare for anyone to see. Making models of features is cheap. Anyone can do it. There are loads of white papers and benchmarks. Some approaches beat others depending on the benchmark. Claiming it 'works' by tweaking it until it fits a canned benchmark is not hard work. Not having any explanation as to why it works is not hard work.

Coming up with a functional systems architecture that ties the bits and pieces together is hard work. Understanding what is really happening in the human brain, how/why it is performing various functions, and how this provides for an intelligent architecture is hard work. Creating an 'aware' platform is hard and elusive work which is why people chase the low hanging fruit of optimization algorithms.

*Cheers

Deep Mind was funded by Elon Musk as well as others in its earlier stages. Elon Musk is one of the individuals who speaks out as if he is wildly fearful of where Ai is going. Fundamentally, an individual has no control over what an AGI development group does unless they're invested in them. There are many notable groups beyond the handful that get the spotlight. They are for instance : working on a Conscious Artificial Intelligence. That is not a 'future goal' of theirs. That is the one and only goal of their efforts. Who do you think will get their first?

>A number of AI/ML startups would like to pursue AGI in the long-term, but why not make revenue along the way? That's exactly the dilemma that many capable researchers faced. Some chose to make money along the way. It shapes the way you then go about solving AGI down the road. It saps up your resources, imagination, and potential and it redirects it to shorter term thinking. Being in the space, there should be an understanding of Short-term vs. long-term thinking based on a reward system that targets short-term success.

> Still, there is at least one startup - Vicarious - focusing purely on long-term research towards AGI that VCs poured plenty of money into, and there are probably others. I'm familiar with Vicarious. You are correct and they notably publish far less details than others. They are funded by top names and are probably the least mentioned when people mention Ai. Why, given the impact that AGI can have, aren't more groups funded? A solution is seemingly right around the corner... Do people not see this?

> I'm not attempting to be a smart ass, but you should back up your speculation with facts and references. Is the best research a secret?

Yes. Given the attitudes of people in the space and beyond and lack of funding why shouldn't the more valuable and fundamental research be kept secret? They're taking all of the risk to pursue something that everyone is saying is impossible. Why would they publish details? If more funding and support would come through maybe they would. Otherwise, they're seemingly developing a fundamental AGI that has the ability to operate under its own free-will and mechanisms. It is being said that it's impossible... Once it's completed no one will be able to deny it at that point. Maybe the money will come then... Maybe the openness will too.

> Your post implied that you have some special insight into research groups that are doing AGI research and are making steady progress. I have done plenty of Google searches and not run across any notable AGI progress.

Yes and I will not disclose where my insights derive from. I'm sure people have their ways of discovering it nonetheless. Some groups and individuals are developing conscious self-willed software solutions. I'm referencing them. Is that not what 'life' which intelligence springs from fundamentally is? As will be true for AGI... Not programs that mimic human behavior or optimization algorithms.. Software solutions that are truly aware.

There are several groups that have already done this and there are several tools similar to OpenAI gym. Why is only one company mentioned when it comes to this? You do understand that a large chunk of OpenAI gym are open source software packages like physics engines, box2d?

Here's what you need to make an Ai Gym :

> Physics engine (pick your open source package)

> Simulator (pick your open source package)

> Write a thin wrapper around it

It can be done and has been done by many individuals in less than a week or two of dedicated work.

I'm not attempting to be a smart arse. However, I really think you should google it :). It is too common a trend for one to latch on to popular names as if they're the only ones doing anything important in a space. There are many cases whereby they're doing the least important work.

I mentioned George Hotz to highlight a capable individual with vision, passion, and capability who 'thinks different'. With many individuals, the capability is there. However, often times the vision, passion, or capability to think different isn't. Funny then that there becomes this hiring norm which attempts to find the 'most capable' individual and ignores the other more important characteristics.

Time will tell. I'm personally looking elsewhere beyond the names everyone mentions when it comes to development in this space.

More should be done to highlight this. The persistent fanboy like culture, among those even in tech, which centers on only a handful of popular corporate names who serve as system integrators after the fact is dishonest and disingenuous in my opinion.

Given that the public funding of basic research most always results in the ushering in of new technological paradigms that make corporations tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars, more should be done to make sure they pay back into the system that ensures their constant success.

Not everyone has 'vision' and its hard convincing those who don't have it to see the potential in your idea before its fully formed. In cases of fundamental technology like Ai, there should be a national effort to fund individuals and people who want to passionately pursue it. Europe has been on top of the ball when it comes to this lately.

Thankfully we live in an age in which the most important research to developing fundamental things like Ai is 'time'. If you have an internet connection and a reasonably decent computer, you have enough resources to create AGi.

If you passionately care about seeing your idea through, save up money, move to a cheaper location, wire your computer to the internet, and get to work.

Once you've proven your vision, who can deny you then? Slam it on the boardroom table, disrupt present day business models, and be the next tech giant.

Yep. "The best way to predict the future is to create it"

Don't stretch your mind to far on this one. If someone or various groups develop AGI and you have no stake in them, you will have no say in how it gets used. For once, people need to be honest with themselves about this.

You're not going to be able to dictate from a third party consortium of PhDs how someone should run their company or develop their software.