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.

cousin_it comments on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: gjm 09 March 2016 12:22PM

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

Comments (183)

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

Comment author: Houshalter 09 March 2016 10:10:45PM 11 points [-]

EY was influenced by E.T. Jaynes, who was really against neural networks, in favor of bayesian networks. He thought NNs were unprincipled and not mathematically elegant, and bayes nets were. I see the same opinions in some of EY's writings, like the one you link. And the general attitude that "non-elegant = bad" is basically MIRI's mission statement.

I don't agree with this at all. I wrote a thing here about how NNs can be elegant, and derived from first principles. But more generally, AI should use whatever works. If that happens to be "scruffy" methods, then so be it.

Comment author: cousin_it 09 March 2016 10:23:45PM *  1 point [-]

Agreed on all points.

I suppose the main lesson for us can be summarized by the famous verse:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

The sequences definitely qualify as shallow draughts that intoxicate the brain :-(