Slashdot Mirror
Google Search Will Be Your Next Brain
New submitter Steven Levy writes with "a deep dive into Google's AI effort," part of a multi-part series at Medium. In 2006, Geoffrey Hinton made a breakthrough in neural nets that launched Deep Learning. Google is all-in, hiring Hinton, having its ace scientist Jeff Dean build the Google Brain, and buying the neuroscience-based general AI company DeepMind for $400 million. Here's how the push for scary-smart search worked, from mouths of the key subjects. The other parts of the series are worth reading, too.
Google search will be my next brain? Who do you think you are talking to, some Yahoo or what?
My last one is already toast!
...
Google has always been into complex algorithms, AI, biology research... Neural nets need access to a lot of "knowledge" to learn, and Google has a lot of that. Not only the websites contents, but also how we humans search and browse, mail and answer to a mail, talk etc... - i.e. how we behave using our brain. That gigantic chunk of data would be however useless if it wasn't for Google talents. Google [only] is certainly able to come out with something amazing - fortunately, or unfortunately...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
When I think of International Harvester, or American Tobacco, or Standard Oil, or US Steel, or AT&T, or Microsoft, or Google:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
"Intelligence", I have come to understand through my 53 fairly interesting years of life, is the ability to focus one's mind on the particular things a particular power structure wants at the time, and to block out other concerns, no matter how relevant those concerns may be to others now or to everyone in the long run. Google are delivering what money demands today, so constantly told how good they are, so reinforced in their belief that they must be doing good. But they're not, really - they're just well-tuned tools, focused on delivering the current fashion. One day the wind'll change and they'll find themselves left behind too, as surprised as Ozymandias.
Spam alert...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Just like my brain. What I really need is something that is BETTER than my brain at finding information.
A good brain can conduct critical thinking.
Google is just a fancy filter.
NB :
Google's propensity to suddenly and arbitrarily discontinue products
and features makes virtually nothing Google does worthy of trust or commitment.
Google search will be my next brain?
I can't fault Google's ambition to provide a 'brain' to its users
After all, most of Google's users are idiots - let's face it, the vast majority of people on this earth are retarded peabrains anyway
But if Google thinks that they can provide a 'brain' to the world, they can do better, much fucking better
Witness, from TFA:
'A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light'
What kind of answer is that?
"Molecules in the air scatter more blue light than red light"?
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?
Why can't they just say it like it is ... the fucking air molecules are BLUE COLOR?
Captcha: helium
It's easy to claim that "the other parts are worth reading" but the summary so far gives no indication of any reason why that would be the case, or even any reason why the claimant should be considered any more trustworthy than any other spammy marketeer. I, for one, shall not click those links.
Another serial medium.com unreadable clickbait spammer.
I'm fine with that.
Since TFA talks about Google offering a brain, an online smart brain, I just had to google "Does Google Lie" and guess what the first result was?
A link to Answer.com 'Does Google lie - Answers.com' which does not work !
And the instructions (type cat ./ type cheeseburger Mango) ain't making any sense either
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
A good brain can conduct critical thinking
Sorry have to break it to ya ...
Almost all the homo homo sapiens in this world have a brain inside their skulls - in other words, they HAVE brains
However, most homo homo sapiens in this world can't even think critically
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
So, what, you mean my brain will be even worse at finding memories, will be full of spam, all the fun stuff will be censored and everyone else will be able to see my memories?
NOPE.
It already does a pretty good job.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/d...
"This suggestion is about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities)."
Even just to cope with the implications of what Google is doing in AI... Still working on them, slowly...
My feeling is that our trajectory coming out of any AI singularity will have a lot to do with out moral and social trajectory going into one. So, we should do all we can now to make the world a better place for everyone, to hopefully improve that outcome.
I used to do AI in the 1980s, with my undergrad work at Princeton related to the Pointrel system maybe helping a bit to inspire Wordnet (started by my undergrad advisor as I was graduating), and (accidentally) making probably the world's first simulation of self-replicating cannibalistic robots... But in hanging around CMU's Robotics Institute in the mid 1980s, I got the disturbing feeling that it might be too easy to make "Mind Children" good enough to destroy us humans, but not good enough to "replace" us. After all, an aggressive enough self-replicating robotic cockroach could probably do in the human species, and that does not take much intelligence. As I said at a talk I gave at a conference on AI and Simulation, it is very easy to make AI and robots that are destructive (as I learned unexpectedly from my own simulations); it is much harder to make robots that are cooperative (either with each other or humans). Someone from DARPA literally patted me on the back after that talk and said "keep up the good work" -- which gave me a lot of pause, but I'm not sure which aspect he emphasized (the destructive or constructive). But that sort-of cemented my feelings, and I have not worked much on "AI" since (in an independent AI sense; one might argue any knowledge management stuff has a flavor of AI, including my Pointrel system work).
Still, as with any arms race, and that is what the current push to AI has become, and arms race whether in commercial or military terms, it can be hard to figure out some way out of it before total destruction. So, better sensemaking tools might help with that. There are other problems we wrestle with as well that they could help with, like human health issues. Such tools, as they get smarter, will hopefully be designed as cooperative platforms, for each interaction between the machine and a person, and between people, and between machines.
http://www.shareintl.org/archi...
"These words written [praising competition] by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition. Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn's book will be an invaluable resource."
In gen
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
... to think for me?
any attempt at artificial intelligence from search, so I don't have to keep using quotes and "verbatim" to tell it that yes, I really WAS looking for exactly what I typed, and not all this useless junk. IMO Google's search results have been getting significantly worse over the last couple of years. Sure, all that research is nice, but please give us the option to not use it.
I'm totally amazed by the progress these guys are making. Layering two modules together to allow image tagging is a stroke of genius, and seems to me that that lays the foundation for the Singularity RIGHT THERE.
I kinda wish they would turn some of that computing power toward some blue sky science (imagine deep learning analyzing CERN data, or Hubble imagery, or the human genome, or protein folding, or all of the above). Maybe use some of the resultant knowledge to design and fabricate better components for itself.
Google's new brain search couldn't be any worse than their sloppy, imprecise, and useless results. Since 2008, Google's search engine has taken a nose-dive in quality. Maybe their AI can bring back the exact searching they used to offer a few years ago?
*If you were a pirate, you know what would be the one thing that would really make you mad? Treasure chests with no handles. How the hell are you supposed to carry it?!*
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
mod this spam into oblivion please... anyone!
I'll wait for Deep Thought.
...this might take a while, though.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Well done for picking out Geoffrey Hinton as the Sage Genius, single-handedly responsable for Deep Learning.
Science isn't done by lone individuals any more, and trying to propagate the lone Genius stereotype is dishonest reporting.
Hinton, G. E, Osindero, S., and Teh, Y. W. (2006). A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computation, 18:1527-1554.
Hinton, G. E. and Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313:504-507.
More likely google is struggling hard to justify being duped out of 400 million
Bingo. If Google Search is going to be our next brain, we're all going to be retards who can only answer questions with completely unrelated crap.
So you couldn't bother yourself to read the article. But that didn't stop you from expressing an uninformed opinion. Dumbass!