Do you consider gwern not to be an AI expert? I think this is a reasonably technical explanation of how we may not be as far away from AGI as some choose to believe: https://www.gwern.net/Scaling-hypothesis
Nah, he’s more of a hobbyist in AI. I don’t necessarily think you need to be explicitly in academia to produce good academic work (independent researchers do exist), but he hasn’t really produce anything (in terms of actual theoretical/experimental results) that could be regarded as a substantial contribution to the field. He’s made some anime datasets though, maybe it could be useful to some.
I often wonder if being too close to the experimental results and current techniques blinds some people from seeing the bigger picture. Gwern certainly seems good at analyzing large-scale trends in AI research, perhaps broad high-level knowledge of the field is advantageous for this vs deep understanding of specific neural network details.
I am not sure who this person is. How much has he published in ML and what is his h-index.
As examples, Le Cun has a h-index of 127
Hinton 164
Goodfellow 75 etc. None of them consider AGI to be a realistic possibility this century. Kurzweil, the AGI proponent, has an hindex of 22.
lasagnaphil|4 years ago
salt-licker|4 years ago
random314|4 years ago
As examples, Le Cun has a h-index of 127 Hinton 164 Goodfellow 75 etc. None of them consider AGI to be a realistic possibility this century. Kurzweil, the AGI proponent, has an hindex of 22.
mpfundstein|4 years ago