Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

You Might Use AI, But That Doesn't Mean You're an AI Company, Says a Founder of Google Brain (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-in-a-name dept.

As AI space gets crowded, there are a slew of businesses -- new and old -- looking to market themselves as "AI companies." But according to Andrew Ng, a founder of the Google Brain team and a luminary in the space, there's more to being an AI company than just using a neural net. From a report: In his view, while it's possible to create a website for a shopping mall, that doesn't make it an internet company. In the same way, just implementing basic machine learning does not make a standard technology company (or any other business) an AI company. "You're not an AI company because there are a few people using a few neural networks somewhere," Ng said. "It's much deeper than that." First and foremost, AI companies are strategic about their acquisition of data, which is used as the fuel for machine learning systems. Once an AI company has acquired the data, Ng said that they tend to store it in centralized warehouses for processing. Most enterprises have their information spread across multiple different warehouses, and collating that data for machine learning can prove difficult. AI companies also implement modern development practices, like frequent deployments. That means it's possible to change the product and learn from the changes.

38 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Unrelated Attempts to Prove Superiority by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    Being an AI company comes down to - is your primary business AI? That's it. All this other crap - whether it's useful or not - is just a way to crow about how great or big his company is.

  2. there's company coming tomorrow by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    and they're all inlaws, so they are my AI company

  3. What's the point? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

    I get the feeling he's ranting his way up to outright saying "Only Google (Brain) counts as a *real* AI company, everyone else is a faker, and they have cooties too".

    Either that or he's giving an open invitation to start a flamewar about who is and isn't a *real* AI engineer.

    1. Re:What's the point? by somenickname · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling he's ranting his way up to outright saying "Only Google (Brain) counts as a *real* AI company, everyone else is a faker, and they have cooties too".

      Either that or he's giving an open invitation to start a flamewar about who is and isn't a *real* AI engineer.

      Come on... Everyone knows that as soon as you link against TensorFlow, you are now an AI company.

  4. Make it stop! by kkoo · · Score: 1

    AI blah, AI blah blah. Is there no other tech news nowadays?

    1. Re:Make it stop! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      . . . You sound like someone in the 90's being pissed that everyone keeps talking about this newfangled "Internet" thing and they're failing to focus on what's really important. Like the Z380 processor.

  5. Real AI by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    There is a certain crossover point that is hard to ignore. The U.S. Supreme Court has already given corporations the same rights as humans. An AI CEO and complete AI ownership should now be possible. That means no stockholders to pay off. As profits occur the AI can now expand its hardware and software or invest in other corporations or even real estate. The AI business now exists to serve only itself. That should give a huge advantage over corporations using human ownership and management. It could get to the point that no human operated business could ever hope to compete. It is like a mirror for what is occurring in the human labor market. One machine replaces 500 miners. A cell phone system eliminates almost all operators. Accountants being slaughtered by bookkeeping software. Drivers being eliminated by self driving cars. I am not one bit against this technology but I am angry at a system too stupid to prepare for the inevitable end of human employment.

    1. Re:Real AI by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Supreme Court has already given corporations the same rights as humans

      I know you're talking about Citizens United case, and I'm just as pissed about it as you are, but the ruling was more selective than that. They ruled that groups of people are free to make political contributions... as a group. Corporate personhood has gone back and forth in the USA over the decades. But they don't have the same rights, not even after that case. They can't vote, for example.

      An AI CEO and complete AI ownership

      That's... essentially just a corporate charter. Or a trust. They have employees enact the algorithm. Typically the rules are really loose and a lot is left up the employees. Like, say, the charter is simply "MAKE MONEY!" and the details are left up to the CEO. But they can get as specific and detailed as they want. Legally though, the possibility has been there since... forever. All those crazy wills? Like where a rich dude leaves all his money to his cat? The right way to do it is to form a trust that's given the goal rules of operation that takes care of the cat. Lawyers enact the will and hire... cat-sitters or whatever. No stockholders, just the big pile of money that the lawyers slowly suck off whenever they have to look at the cat. And yeah, a lot of these sort of trusts have side-ventures to make money to keep the trust going.

      The AI business now exists to serve only itself.

      ho ho HO! I think I can simplify that one for you: "business exists to serve only itself." There we go. You know, unless there's some freaking cat or something mentioned in the charter.

      It could get to the point that no individually operated business could ever hope to compete.

      Still fixing.

      And then you slide from the legal aspect to talking about automation taking jobs. And, yes, I'd fully endorse automating away CEOs and business manager types. Dear god, if anyone else deserved it more, I'm not sure who. But there are still accountants and miners and stock brokers, it's just that there's now a handful utilizing the automation tools whereas before there were hundreds doing stuff by hand. When automation comes for the bosses, it'll be the franchise managers to go first. Then the mid-tier bosses. Then the smaller companies. And in the end there will be a small handful of CEOs directing the CEO-bots of various competing megacorps.

      It's not the end of human employment, it's the massive consolidation of jobs and resulting inequality.

  6. "You might call it AI but it's just an algorithm" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no AI; it's not even remotely possible yet. There is no artificial intelligence. It's just a buzzword for 'clever code'.

    I get so god damn worked up when everybody and their dog is claiming to use AI when real true artificial intelligence would be the greatest achievement in computer science since it's invention.
    A computer that can think for itself, think beyond it's code, re-write itself to learn, to adapt, to act like a living mind; that is AI and we're not even fucking close.

  7. Sounds stupid by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    An AI company is any company where AI is their product - they don't have to organize themselves a certain way or even be successful.

    Everything else is a company that uses AI.

    1. Re:Sounds stupid by Tupper · · Score: 1

      Google, for instance, is an advertising company that uses AI.

  8. Technically by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    all you need to be an AI company is to buy one, put it in the center of a room and start worshipping it like a god. ...

    ok, it would be more like an AI cult than a company unless you start exploiting your faith for profit.

  9. AAAAGH by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "...As AI space gets crowded..."

    Jesus, just STOP already?

    First it was referring to every remote-control anything as a "drone".

    Then it's the universality of solar power because it's so 'competitive'....yes, as long as its subsidized to the tune of what 40x any other power generation industry?

    Then it was the panegyrics about the end of the gasoline car when electrics are barely more than a boutique electric golf cart serving a *teensy* niche market.

    Now it's "...As AI space gets crowded..." *WHAT* AI space? There is not ONE SINGLE ACTUAL AI ON THE PLANET. Not one. How the FUCK is it getting "crowded"?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:AAAAGH by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      It'a all the Marketeers that make it crowded.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:AAAAGH by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the problem with human language: humans use it.

      Words mean whatever most people agree they mean, and regrettably most people are sloppy thinkers. Shortly after a word like, oh say "broadband", enters the language with a wonderfully sharp meaning that is immediately dulled the instant the masses take it up.

      This leaves the more precise-minded of us in a lexicographic position analogous to a carpenter attempting to carve a dovetail joint with a stick of butter.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:AAAAGH by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Perfect example of *misuse* of language you mean?

      Carefully tuned vehicle, moving at a very precisely maintained speed in controlled conditions on a flat test track carrying no passengers.

      That's not a "commercial bus" in ANY sense. That's a test vehicle, more like a prototype, that may indeed be "bus shaped".

      --
      -Styopa
  10. Indeed by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no AI companies, because there is no AI. We have a rtificial, but we don't have i ntelligence.

    What there are is marketing companies.

    They're waving neural networks around - basically a vaguely neuron-like means to do "if something like this, then that" - and calling it AI so they can sell more of it.

    If/when AI gets here, the stuff they're calling "AI" today will be the subject of raucous laughter - at the people who swallowed the label. At the same time the marketing people will get an "atta boy" for using the term to suck more money out of people's pockets.

    No part of Google is "an AI company." Google is a marketing giant with a popularity-based search engine. Resulting in what popularity usually results in - mediocre results. Well salted with advertising.

    As for the distinctions about AGI and so forth... yep, that's them, marketing you. Exactly what I'm talking about. Intelligence is that thing you have, that a thermostat, toaster, or go playing program does not. That's what it's always been, and it's still that. When something else has it in any like degree, you'll know it. Because it won't just play go - it'll argue with you about what intelligence is, among many, many other things. Intelligence incorporates the ability to generalize. Saying "general intelligence" is like saying "pizza pie" or "cha tea." Not that it stops people looking to market their shite. Nothing stops them.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled buzzword fest.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're waving neural networks around - basically a vaguely neuron-like means to do "if something like this, then that" - and calling it AI so they can sell more of it.

      In fact it is more like:

      The probability of THIS in the presence of THAT equals the probability of THAT in the presence of THIS, times the probability of THIS over the probability of THAT.

    2. Re: Indeed by HarryRoache-Wilson · · Score: 1

      Your logic is inverted. Intelligence is the ability to dynamically react to environment, no? Designating something that exhibits this trait as 'AI' invokes naturalism. Are you natural? No. Is 'AI' artificial? No. You are a machine and so are the bots, they're just better at math. This debate reminds me of the concept of ether before electromagnetism was theorised. Intelligence/consciousness, etc are just the new ether...an intellectual crutch for those who lack imagination

    3. Re:Indeed by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      There are no AI companies, because there is no AI. We have a rtificial, but we don't have i ntelligence.

      If that is so, how is Google able to identify people, places, landmarks, buildings, cars, boats, bridges, skyscrapers, sunsets, lattes,... in my images and categorize them accordingly?
      Seems pretty i ntelligent to me.

  11. WTF?! by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    AI companies also implement modern development practices, like frequent deployments.

    Wha... so I'm not a REAL AI company unless I do continuous deployment like an agile strategy?
    Doesn't that belie the fact that a TRUE AI should only be deployed ONCE and then becomes self maintainable?
    Fess up - You guys don't have "AI" either - you have nothing more than the old Animal program on steroids and you're constantly updating the backend database that the "AI" program drives through to find a match
    http://www.animalgame.com/play...

  12. Makes perfect sense by dlleigh · · Score: 1

    Just because I buy and use something, doesn't make mean that I understand that thing or have any particular expertise or insight about it.

    Kim Kardashian uses an iPhone, but I would not describe her as a high-tech individual.

  13. Re: "You might call it AI but it's just an algorit by JarekC · · Score: 1

    Actually if I met a dog claiming it's using AI, I would say it's a pretty smart dog.

  14. And Google is what? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    That make Google an advertising company then?

  15. dude, your pillow is looking horsey of late by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    shhhh, stop exposing my scam, dammit, i spent a lot to start my smart-socks biz

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  16. News flash by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Head "AI" honcho at Google tells let's everyone else know that aren't really doing AI.

    AI companies also implement modern development practices, like frequent deployments.

    I really fail to see how the software development processes one follows defines if you are doing "AI", or not.

    That means it's possible to change the product and learn from the changes.

    Tell me more Mr. Wizard!

  17. Open Offices by ghoul · · Score: 1

    All this guy is really saying that you are not an AI company if you dont do the things we at Google do. Go ahead Drink the GoolAid. Next they will say you are not an AI company if you dont have the dysfunctional Open Offices. News flash Genius - most progress in history was made by introverts who like a quiet place to work where they can concentrate. Google started out as a good company but now it pushes toxic trends as a bunch of politicians managed to get hired. I would take anything coming out of Google with a pinch of salt.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Open Offices by wiretrip · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree with him/her... Google has got too big and now seems to think that it is the centre of the computing world. They buy or steal other people's approaches to things and then claim them as their own inventions, a bit like a huge Thomas Edison....

  18. Split hair by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The only motivation I can see to such a hair splitting speech is that Google wants to market itself as an AI company. Otherwise, who care about what company is AI or not?

  19. Re:Whiny guy wants his "AI" company to stand alone by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

    What do you think you are?

  20. It's a misnomer, but not in the way you think it i by HarryRoache-Wilson · · Score: 1

    I'm going out on a limb here but isn't intelligence just the ability to dynamically react to environment? Designating something that exhibits this trait as AI invokes naturalism. Are you natural? No. Is 'AI' artificial? No. You are a machine and so are the bots, they're just better at math. This debate reminds me of the concept of ether before electromagnetism was theorised. Intelligence/consciousness, etc are just the new ether...an intellectual crutch for those who lack imagination

  21. Re: It's a misnomer, but not in the way you think by HarryRoache-Wilson · · Score: 1

    I would say that it is. A cascade of action potentials in the brain behaves in much the same way. What I'm getting at is that intelligence is an emergent property and there is nothing mistaken in using it to describe algorithms

  22. It's the dad argument.... by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    My dad is bigger than your dad and he says we are an AI family, so there.

  23. by that definition by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Google uses advertising to finance their AI research and uses AI in some of their products, but that doesn't make Google "an AI company": AI software or hardware isn't a significant product for Google, at least not yet.

  24. WTF is Google Brian? by wiretrip · · Score: 1

    WTF is Google Brian? Certainly not the messiah ;-)

  25. Depends on the Definition of AI (the AI Effect) by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    There are no AI companies, because there is no AI. We have artificial, but we don't have intelligence.

    This comment is really a part of what the definition of artificial intelligence is, the "AI Effect" that many practitioners and professors I know would always complain about, on how the field of AI would come up with some new technique or system, and then promptly, people would pull that out of the AI field and say, "Well, that's not REAL intelligence." Line one from that article:

    The AIS effect occurs when onlookers discount the behavior of an artificial intelligence program by arguing that it is not real intelligence.

    Computer Science, at least per Russell and Norvig who wrote the de facto textbook on AI, is "the designing and building of intelligent agents that receive percepts from the environment and take actions that affect that environment." If you use that definition, then many of those claims are true.

    I liked these quotes best:

    Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.' - Pamela McCorduck

    A problem that proponents of AI regularly face is this: When we know how a machine does something 'intelligent,' it ceases to be regarded as intelligent. - Fred Reed

    This paradox resulted from the fact that whenever an AI research project made a useful new discovery, that product usually quickly spun off to form a new scientific or commercial specialty with its own distinctive name. These changes in name led outsiders to ask, Why do we see so little progress in the central field of artificial intelligence? - Marvin Minsky

  26. Re:They're goddamn algorithms, stop calling it "AI by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    They're specialized algorithms that are "trained" to do one thing.

    Yes, exactly. The end-product doing the thing is typically just an algorithm. The path it takes to get to it's answers might be really hard to understand, as with any sort of machine generated code, but it's really just applying a formula. Change something that the formula/algorithm/model didn't account for and it's hosed.

    The Intelligence part is the training. Developing these algorithms. The part where they feed a machine learning algorithm a TON of data and it produces another algorithm that's good at.... whatever. The end product isn't so much AI as the product of AI. The machine learning algorithms aren't AI per-se, but rather tools to allow AI to happen. Design rather than implementation. The part where a machine LEARNS about a topic and figures it out.... that's intelligence.

    The same way that rehashing this argument online over and over again doesn't involve any intelligence from us. But the part where we take in new input and learn from it and apply it to our arguments... well, it's less dumb.

    You're right that there's not a great definition of intelligence. But if figuring shit out isn't a decent definition, then I'm not sure you're going to get one. I don't think gluing a driving algorithm to a chess algorithm is really any sort of magical threshold. I think if you could take a generalized machine learning suite and dump a bunch of different sorts of data sets into it, with different goals (like driving and chess), and have it generate decent algorithms for either task then that'd be pretty smart. And we've had those generalized tools since the 70's. But they work a HELL of a lot better with some domain specific coding. Optimizing that search-space is what the field is all about.

  27. Re:"You might call it AI but it's just an algorith by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Can you think for yourself? How are you different than these self-learning algorithms?

    If we stuck you in a bookstore in Sichuan and told you "Learn to read Chinese", what would you do that's fundamentally different than what a computer would do?