Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilaksh | Hacker News Reader

Are any of you trying to apply some of these ideas to general intelligence or is that only Deep Mind?

If for example Google Assistant is ever going to be able to _really_ understand what people are talking about, it will most likely need to be based on a virtually embodied agent gradually trained somewhat like a human child. If you or any of the other Google Brain team members are interested, you should study the existing field of AGI. See 'AGI-16 videos intelligence' on youtube for example. I mention this because these papers such as the one linked here frequently reference general or animal-like intelligence, yet almost all of the best funded AI efforts seem explicitly ignorant of or dissmissive of the existing AGI research.

View on HN

You understand that AGI16 is a futureism conference and has little to do with actually building anything that works?

Whilst theories like a 'virtually embodied agent trained like a child' sounds like it makes sense there is nothing to say it will work, except that humans are like that. But we don't know how brains work enough to copy that anyway.

> AGI16 is a futureism conference

I would like to point out that the AGI Conference series [1] is an academic conference, with refereed proceedings published in the Springer Lecture Notes on Computer Science [2].

[1] http://agi-conf.org/

[2] http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41649-6

It is a legitimate conference. That doesn't mean it's any good. It doesn't have any standing in the AI or machine learning research community (unlike: NIPS, ICML, AAAI, KDD, CVPR, ACL, etc...). The Springer LNCS series is just an oddball mishmash of papers from all sorts of sources. A legitimate publication, but not one with any standing in the community.

It's unfortunate that which conferences/journals are "good" (e.g. worth reading) or not is one of those things that's really 100% obvious to anyone in the research community, and totally esoteric to anyone not in the community.

Major thread bump here, but there are a number of (second) authors of papers that are recognizable and credible ML/AI researchers. In particular I noticed Marcus Hutter and Jürgen Schmidhuber.

But yeah..

It's weird. Some of those papers are pretty good, but most of the videos are bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com