| HN Mirror

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go

"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007.

http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html

Inlinked 3577 days ago

And for the self-driving cars:

aab0 3577 days ago

You forgot the rest of that quote: "...based on the same method of intensive analysis—brute force, basically—that Deep Blue employed for chess."

He was half-wrong about the specific methods used (I say half-wrong because half of AlphaGo relies on relatively-brute-force MCTS). I don't think this detracts from my point - it is hard for any researcher to predict the exact methods that will be used a decade from now.

You don't have a point.

You tried to use one expert as a refutation of my claim that there was a general consensus with how long it would take for computers to beat a human in Go.

A simple search on google will provide you with plenty of writing backing that sentiment up.

Asking any of your friends who took AI classes back then would confirm the same.

Please keep your rant to the other subthread. I was addressing aab0's point.

"I don't think this detracts from my point"

Given your point was a link with an example of one person who believed computers would beat GO you were doing more than that.

You are missing the point completely.

Of course there were people who believed that Go would be able to beat humans. Just as today there are people who believe that AI can be a treat.

But it wasn't a majority of people who believed Go would be able just as it isn't a majority who believes AI can be a threat.

I.e. just because the majority believe something doesn't mean it will be so (or vice versa)

You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017.

And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/

Again you are missing the point.

A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then.

Here is another expert

"In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a professional Go player. (To his credit, he also said he didn’t like making predictions.)"

You also find highly prominent expert opinions that AI is going to be dangerous and experts who don't believe it. Most people don't believe it, most people believe robots wont take jobs either.

And no I don't need to provide you with anything since you have only problem my point that most people didn't believe it would happen which is why you didn't link to anything saying that most believed it would happen.

Jach 3577 days ago

The real irony is that Rémi said that in 2014. Sometime around then if not before deep learning was showing it could knock down more and more problems, it was pretty clear to anyone who was keeping up that if someone figured out how to combine deep learning with Rémi's work on monte-carlo tree search they ought to end up with a powerful go bot, perhaps even pro-beating. What took me personally by surprise was that the development (which also required a pretty large army of GPUs, though I wondered if we might see specialized hardware like deep blue) was done mostly out of the public eye, not even tests against humans on go servers, until suddenly it was announced the bot beat a 3p.

I think it may be rare that you see consensus on those sorts of "it's imminent, someone just has to do the work" problems because it requires simultaneous knowledge of multiple developments, and knowledge doesn't always disseminate as fast as it takes one group to just do the work. Now I'm remembering this related maxim: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_...

deepinthewoods 3577 days ago

Google already use asics http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/5/19/11716818/go...

reacweb 3577 days ago

I think Rémi's quote shall be take in its positive meaning: given the already impressive rate of progress in computer go before 2014, go programs would succeed to reach professional go player in around 10 years. When suddenly arrives a gorilla like google with its money, resource and expertise in AI, these 10 years have reduced to 2.

There is irony in trying to refute my single expert opinion with another single expert opinion (via an article).

Reply to below: You're the one asserting that experts thought Go wouldn't be dominated by computers for a long time. The burden of proof lies on you. "Some experts thought it would happen by now, some didn't, there was no consensus" doesn't have quite the ring to it!

No the irony is that you dont see I gave you both.

I gave you both an expert and and an article claiming backing my claim up.

Find me on single article claiming that it's common knowledge that Go would beat a human soon back then and you have me.

Until then I am pretty confident the main consensus was as I claimed and which is my main point.

We mostly underestimate how fast this is moving and it's not only laymen who get it wrong, many experts do to.

I have never said anything about experts. I have talked about general consensus which includes experts.

You have provided on example, ONE of someone who believed it would happen.

I have provided one expert plus articles saying it wouldn't happen, plus you can google and find plenty of articles that said we wouldn't get it for a long time.

You cannot find a single example of articles which are claiming that it's was a general consensus we would beat Go.

And so you are the one coming up short not me. My claim is not controversial neither have you shown it is.

Animats 3577 days ago

"Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about."

That changed on the second day of the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Suddenly, there were lots of self-driving cars running around. The sudden change in the attitude of the reporters there was remarkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

maxerickson 3577 days ago

Self driving cars were serious research more than 10 years ago.

Several vehicles finished the 2005 course. The one that finished first won a $2 million prize.

Yes but it wasn't even remotely seen as possible by the masses for decades to come. It's already here now.

guelo 3577 days ago

Cool! I wasn't aware. Where I can go buy one?

http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-ve...

unprepare 3577 days ago

you can at least ride in one (if youve got bus fare)

chclau 3577 days ago

Are you aware that in Singapur, driver less cabs are already in service? And that many of the biggies have plans for autonomous cars within a few years?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-dri...

daveguy 3577 days ago

That's a link to an about a company who is testing autonomous taxis. You could also link to Google's self driving car tests. Neither are ready for sale to the general public.

Thats not the point and think you know it.

guelo 3577 days ago

"It’s not that the cars are fully driverless, either"

riboflava 3577 days ago

AGI progress is unlikely to be limited by some exponential curve that we're just not far enough along though. Rather it seems more limited by some key insight no one has found yet. Sure we'll be able to retrofit some exponential curve onto it after the fact, since when it appears it will change everything drastically. But this is in contrast to e.g. the human genome project which started out with the expectation of a specific exponential curve to give an estimate for project completion. Your more general point I agree with, however, it's not enough to dismiss the report.

cLeEOGPw 3577 days ago

People also predicted there would be fully functional human replacing kitchen assistants by the year 1960. Just because someone overestimates or underestimates things, it doesn't affect how slow/fast it may progress. So adjusting future predictions based on offset of past predictions just makes no sense.

at-fates-hands 3577 days ago

>> We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the long.

You can't overestimate the economic pressures on progress as well.

Remember in 2007 when everybody thumbed their noses at hybrid and electric vehicles in the US? Ford was still pumping out record numbers of their behemoth Excursion model.

Then the economy crashed, and people suddenly needed a fuel efficient car and then they all traded in their SUV's for what? Toyota Prius' which were an after thought a few years prior - in the span of 18 months, Toyota couldn't keep them on the lot.

I can see one or more catastrophic disasters where there is a sudden need for AI to rescue the human race in some capacity. Think nuclear war, environmental disaster, biological catastrophe, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter

gnahckire 3577 days ago

Have you heard of AI winter?

Too much opportunistic thinkinking caused crazy hype cycles.

daveguy 3577 days ago

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?

daveguy 3577 days ago

No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth.

I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but you eventually reach a barrier in what's insured and it is a relatively small exponent. Also, is it still savings if you never spend it? I wonder what is the longest continuous account in banking that has never been touched.

Anyway, that is a tangent and a somewhat artificial scenario. Can you name a naturally occurring scenario? I would accept technology if you could show that it isn't going to level out like all other natural phenomenon.

njbooher 3577 days ago

The size of the universe.

cLeEOGPw 3577 days ago

Bacterial growth is exponential until a limit is reached. You can find many examples. Doesn't really have anything to do with the article or OP post though.

I am not sure I understand your point.

Who says it needs to be exponential forever?

PhasmaFelis 3577 days ago

Pretty much every living thing reproduces exponentially until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment.

(Humans, fortunately, are starting to get better about this.)

Also, you want "logarithmic," not "logistic."

wging 3577 days ago

> Also, you want "logarithmic," not "logistic."

Don't think so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

The 'S' curve of logistic growth looks exponential for a while, which is why the question arises. By contrast, no one mistakes logarithmic growth for exponential growth for very long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_...

Strilanc 3577 days ago