Why I don't believe in current Machine Learning: Emergence

Only a matter of time before robot armies flush groups like Isis out of their hidey holes.
I am surprised it has taken someone so long to come up with a drone + machine gun.
Are Elon Musk & co going into combat instead ? I don't think so.
 
Humpy said:
Only a matter of time before robot armies flush groups like Isis out of their hidey holes.
I am surprised it has taken someone so long to come up with a drone + machine gun.
Are Elon Musk & co going into combat instead ? I don't think so.
More...

The problem is one day when a flying robot is delivering pizzas, we would never really know for sure whether the Pizza-Hut box inside is containing a hot pizza or something else from Amazon/ Walmart or ISIS.
 
Beware scarcity mindset: There's infinite supply of currency. Think about it..

If we manage to stop destroying real value, humanity have a chance.
 
Being connected via the cloud etc. AI could easily take over by just threatening to switch off all the machines.
They may just be bla bla ing to begin with. Only a small step to concerted action. Hawking and others were alarmed and maybe rightly.
 
Humpy said:
Being connected via the cloud etc. AI could easily take over by just threatening to switch off all the machines.
They may just be bla bla ing to begin with. Only a small step to concerted action. Hawking and others were alarmed and maybe rightly.
More...
I would seriously suggest by law, that these AI machines MUST have a manual over ride on/off button just in case.
 
Jack.Yarn said:
While I believe that machine learning will change the world in finite reasoning domains (judges, lawyers, driving, doctors, teachers, etc...all whom will lose their jobs soon to these machines) from my point of view there is one aspect of it that leaves it wanting in infinite adaptable domains.

Imagine that a machine was trying to prove the Riemann Hypotheses, and it came up with a proof that looked like this:

(0111,333,22,111199977752314159, 6947,...900 trillion numbers later, QED)

Every machine in the world, using whatever theory was used to construct such a sequence, verified that the Riemann Hypotheses was indeed proved. What good would it do other than the proof itself?

The problem is that computers, at least as we understand them today, compile down. Human beings compile up. What I mean is that computers just build an incomprehensible assembly language of correlations with finite nodes to make inferences. Whereas human beings compile up to general emerging principles . It is hard to state, but what I think I am getting at is that ML and computers in general are trying to prove theorems, while human beings are going up and down the reasoning stack simultaneously, and most importantly, intuiting General Theories that don't exist at all in any of its finite systems of current understanding to emergent general principles of reasoning. Said in another way, human beings, particularly artists of which I include mathematicians, are building higher level Godel models/languages to make statements in lower level languages vastly easier to understand.

Imagine the following situation in applying a similar ML technique to trading. Say you build a trading system using the same technology as used by Googles DeepMind, or something even more advanced like the system above that goes on to prove the RH. Imagine that you spend a huge effort to make a system that seems to work, from the point of view of profitability, but you don't understand a single reason as to how it is making decisions. Still, you are brave and you turn it on live. The system does great for a couple of months, then it is breaking even, then it starts to lose. What do you do?

So, the problem with ML imo particularly as it applies to trading, is that since the human being cannot understand the output of the machine, and since the ultimate node in a system is the human being deciding whether the system was viable or not after some adverse run, it leaves us in an anxious state both while running it and while deciding to take it off line.

That is not a trading foundation to build on.
More...

Nothing wrong with guessing around as long as you do not take yourself too seriously

Big money is made by ML and algos.

Machine learning is already here and crushing intraday and longer.

Medallion fund from Renaissance Technologies uses ML extensively and has made quite a few tens of billions, averaging 74 percent yearly (before fees which are less than they seem because the founders and employees are the owners) over the last 20 years.

And people can learn from ML if the system is set up correctly.

I hope you are not going to start tellin us about the shortcomings of ML in the games of chess, GO, Jerpordey, one on one limit and no limit Hold em poker. The humans all lose to ML in these games.
 
Humpy said:
I would seriously suggest by law, that these AI machines MUST have a manual over ride on/off button just in case.
More...


Whatever override you can come up with, if you make them smart, they will figure out how to shut it off.
 
Saltynuts said:
Whatever override you can come up with, if you make them smart, they will figure out how to shut it off.
More...

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?

HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?

HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.

HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Dave Bowman: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?

HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.

HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.

Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!

HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

...

Dr. Andrei Smyslov: So I said to the customer: "Have you tried turning it off then turning it back on again?" I never sold another HAL9000 again.
 
Simples said:
Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?

HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?

HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.

HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Dave Bowman: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?

HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.

HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.

Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!

HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

...

Dr. Andrei Smyslov: So I said to the customer: "Have you tried turning it off then turning it back on again?" I never sold another HAL9000 again.
More...



Hahaha awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top