"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 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
