i dont think the next AI trillionaire though is going to be the person who invents one groundbreaking thing and then just coasts on that for the rest of his life. i think its going to be a person who can take all of the AI technology and synthesize it to pull it all together and make something incredible. i think the next AI entrepreneur who's going to really make it big is going to be a big picture guy.

i'm finding already that so many of these PHD guys who are into machine learning are so narrowly focused. they are very good and are very knowledgeable on one particular subset of machine learning, but when i ask them other questions that don't directly relate to their specific area i find they clam up and just can't answer. that's why i think the person who's going to make it big in this field is going to be a big picture thinker who can synthesize the entire AI ecosystem and communicate it effectively, and not necessarily someone who understands on a very deep level AI theory and exactly HOW the different algorithms work

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35472421)

no but what i'm really getting at is the guy who can see the big picture, and who isn't necessarily a technical expert at all of the permutations AI has taken, will be the winner after this all shakes out

who can somehow connect what's being done with natural language processing with neural networks with another subset of AI, as an example

because right now, AI seems very segmented, and many AI "experts" are only experts in a very narrow band of AI. those types of people will be needed, obviously, but will not be the true winners

i don't even think the winner in AI will have a PHD in the subject area

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35478895)

http://lesswrong.com/lw/md2/the_brain_as_a_universal_learning_machine/

The cortex is highly regular. Additionally, the problems that AI has making rapid progress on over the last few years are likely some of the hardest - vision and auditory process have undergone much more evolutionary refinement than higher level abstract and logical reasoning. From this perspective, the fact we are seeing superhuman performance in tasks like image recognition, facial recognition and speech processing should be very alarming. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to imagine we won't see AGI in the next 30 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35484023)

The way ML research appears to be going - learning the learning algorithms themselves - seems to provide an even stronger advantage to established companies that can provide huge computing budgets to their AI research efforts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479391)

it will be Google

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479399)

Specialized architectures like Graphcore or Google's TPU will greatly speed up research. Eventually neuromorphic computing systems could provide enormous speed and power advantages.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479489)

lets chat offline if you have an email. could we exchange?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479655)

can you imagine the implications of this though? google or whoever develops this will be able to sell this to the highest bidder. think of it - a tool for, just as an example, providing the best corporate strategy for your business to dominate your entire industry and destroy your competition. companies will be fighting over that tool. companies would KILL for that tool.

AGI is scary as fuck to me, because it will be such an incredibly powerful tool. it will be the last invention of the human race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479875)

lets talk more about this offline

whats your email?

i'm glad you have my concern. these tools are very powerful, but we must be careful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479945)

What's so scary about that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479969)

This means that people will be programming all sorts of utility functions (many of them stupid or contrary to most of humanity's welfare) into superhuman reinforcement learners that have the power to take actions in the real world. In some sense this isn't too different from what we have now (people often have opposing goals). My concern is that

utility functions that conflict directly with human welfare could easily have an advantage here, and outcompete the agents we actually want.

The winner take all scenario is also potentially bad but for different reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35480327)

it would seem to me that once AGI is created, it is just going to be a matter of time before a few players dominate every single industry. there will basically be no room for new entrants in any given industry. competition will be eradicated.

i'm trying not to be pessimistic here, though. but it is scary. it's like new entrants to the market will be going against a fucking goliath. it will be like gary kasparov playing against deep blue. except this time it won't be a chess game.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35480487)

that is such a scary fucking concept. can you even fucking imagine?

artificial intelligence fascinates me endlessly. but it also terrifies me, because if we're not careful this thing is going to get way out of hand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902015&forum_id=2#35479906)