You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

passive_fist comments on Using the Copernican mediocrity principle to estimate the timing of AI arrival - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: turchin 04 November 2015 11:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (17)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 04 November 2015 10:44:42PM *  2 points [-]

The exponential growth of ML research may already be decreasing.

Here's the number of paper hits from the keyword "machine learning":

http://i.imgur.com/jezwBhV.png

And here's the number of paper hits from the keyword "pattern recognition":

http://i.imgur.com/Sor5seJ.png

(Don't mind the tiny value for 2016, these are papers that are due to be published next year and obviously that year's data has not been collected yet!)

Source: scopus, plotted with Gadfly

If I had to guess, I'd say we've already reached the limit of diminishing returns when it comes to the ratio of amount of material you have to learn / amount you can contribute. Research is hard.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 08 November 2015 04:36:23PM 2 points [-]

This is interesting, but I wonder how much of it is just shifts in naming.

What does the graph for say deep learning look like, or neural nets?

Comment author: passive_fist 08 November 2015 08:27:29PM 0 points [-]

I don't know. You can plot the data for yourself.