nora4

Deep Learning is currently an empirical science guided by intuition of practitioners. A main principle in experimental sciences is that a theory without predictive power is not considered a full-fledged theory. As such, unless they are interesting predictions coming from their theory (rather than only barely justifying existing empirically observed phenomena), this is just speculative theory that I would not use the phrase "Foundations Built" for.

As an example of this general litmus test for a theory see e.g. Eddington's confirmation of GR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#De... . If there are hitherto unknown phenomena in DL predicted by this theory then I'd stand corrected and concede that there may be something to these theories.

What people make is ultimately what demand & supply dictate. On the other hand, for one-off cases where the market is super small, people make what they can negotiate. Of course, even in that one-off cases there is data about the pay of superstar within previous movies/shows/engineering orgs to use as an anchor.

But what about your analysis which is based on unit economics. How does that tie in? (because it is of course relevant) By the fact that if you hire lots of super stars by market price, but your unit economic does not allow the operation to be profitable, you will eventually have to shut the operation down. Good bye super stars and whole operation!

See the references I give below; if he is talking about general trends in AI and is giving an estimate of 7 or 8 years for emergence of AGI, where is he basing it on? Is he basing the estimate on unseen breakthroughs (i.e. unknown unknowns) to occur within that 7 or 8 years frame, or is he talking about current DL techniques pushed to their limits? For the former, nobody can make a reasonable estimate (nature of unknown unknowns) and for the latter, most experts in the field seem to agree that that current techniques do not lead to AGI. (Like have you seen how hard it is do things like visual question answering (VQA) or text summarization tasks? These are much much simpler than AGI but like AGI do not lend themselves easily to supervised learning.)

I assumed akvadrako downvoted that since the vote and the comment appeared very close to each other and both right after my comment. But of course, I surely could be mistaken.

And anyways, downvoting is not a big deal and they have the absolute right to do so. It's just that stating why you disagreed or downvoted would be helpful.

See e.g. Smerity reporting on Elon's talk in NIPS 2017: https://twitter.com/Smerity/status/938994837323259904 as well as https://goo.gl/trX8SJ & https://goo.gl/aTMqv6

What's your evidence for saying he does not say so? A bit mean of you to downvote without asking for evidence.

Except for Elon Musk, who with all due respect, I believe does not count as an informed person in DL.

It really bothers me that he (who is clearly an excellent entrepreneur and human being in general) makes such strong statement on a topic he is clearly not an expert in and is so vocal about it too. Given the amount of influence and number of online followers he has, I find this irresponsible.

To summarize your points AirBnB has these effects: 1) more supply & cheaper options for travelers/short-term renters 2) higher rent and less supply for long term renters. 3) More income for property owners (A more varied demand) 4) Less business for hotels/established incumbents.

It's a very hard tradeoff. I can't tell how to argue for one side or the other. Should we use regulation (or enforce existing ones) to help the long-term renters at the expense of travelers? Or should we let free unregulated market roll? It's not clear-cut case for me either way.

So the question is are laws sacred things that should never be broken. I don't think so. I think there are cases that people should break the law so we progress.

In other words, our laws are not the word of God (so to say), they are the word of men (genderless ofc). Good things can happen when you break them and demonstrate how much value can be unlocked or how much a better society we can become without them. By ignoring the laws you ultimately can become a force for change of the law. Those laws usually are there for a reason, of course. But the point is that sometimes those reasons are antiqued or irrational.

I don't know about the case of AirBnB and zoning laws. Don't know enough to have an opinion there.

Hotels/hostels are not supposed to not list on AirBnB I thought. (I stayed at a very low-end hotel booked from AirBnB in, and I was very disappointed. When I book an AirBnB I hope for a real host, conversation, see how they live and what I got was a stupid hotel... but I digress.)

They can choose to delist the properties that have a separate channel, by crawling the web, or just querying google, query, etc. to find out if the listing is just a shell. Or they can look at the messages to see if the host suggests book instead on this website. (That of course doesn't prevent direct email communication through which the same outcome transpires. It just catches the most naive showroom cases.)

Very good points; I'm in general though space skeptic in the following sense. Human race as a whole always seeks more, bigger, further, faster as solution its problems. I don't think space is the solution to our earthly problems.

Maybe 1000 years from now, people look at us and say god damn it. I wish they had stayed there and learned how to live in earth well. We are now speared all over the place and we all hate hate each other; and just right now I hear Martian went ahead and annexed Venus and they also seem to be interfering in Andromeda elections.

I wonder if they start somehow "cracking down" on that. For now, it might not be worth it but eventually?

Well, I hadn't heard of them till this minute.

If they did bizarre things so they start getting mentioned more in HN or TechCrunch I guess it'd help their cause :P

AirBnB is such a great business. No significant competition for now among startups. Primary (initial) market is different from the incumbents (hotels) and it can gradually chip away from their market share too.

It also has better network-effect than say Uber (which has per-city network effect but no significant global network-effect) and less competition than latter. The "moat" is super strong and the leadership (Brian, Joe et al.) seem to be really good.

I'm so in awe of their prospect. My only misgiving is that they rejected my application (which proves no one's perfect after all - as they seem to also make hiring mistakes:P)

I guess purely logically, you are right. But I would be against the underlying theme behind that general type of thinking. If you take that line of thought and extrapolate it, it starts getting close to a socialistic/anti-economic progress point of view.

That's a great point. Hip, cool, modern entrepreneur types can easily work as agents of gentrification which as you pointed out can lead to massive increase in wealth for nearby properties owners (at the expense of previous occupants/patrons, some will argue).

I feel like for WeWork style business, it should be a race to the bottom (in terms of prices). Once the idea is validated, there would be (as there are) lots of local clones that would try to make a more cool indie version of WeWork. The resulting price-cutting and heavy competition make business rather difficult.

As such, I'm not sure where the economy of scale will come from and why should this be a sustainable business? To be fair, Starbucks and other coffee/restaurant chains also have similar general business characteristics.

Along this note, I don't understand why WeWork is a venture-backed business as opposed to a normal bootstrap business (with more emphasis on early cash-flow and less on growth) as it's usually the case with the above type businesses.

I wonder what will happen to the Facebook the company as this progresses. It would be quite funny if the main product of Facebook becomes Instagram -- and the original product fades.

One thing we might be discounting though is other nations. (I assume you live in N.A.) I don't know how widespread Facebook is elsewhere. It could be that Facebook gives up on N.A. market and let Insta handles their interest there and focus itself on emerging markets.

I don't think so. A/B testing is like gradient descent which is a greedy algorithm. You move in the direction that locally looks best. Evolution on the other hand allows for suboptimal species to persist for enough time to let them develop their advantage. (In the language of optimization evolution allows you to go past the local optimal and reach global optima by allowing you to move in non-optimal direction -- as long as the move is not catastrophic.)

Just look at his profile (a click away). He is the founder of Skymind.

Maybe. Part of me thinks it's somewhat of a small money grab. (hope it's not.)

What I will bet money on though is that no massive success will come out of this. The key to AI is data & hardware (and not algorithm or methodology -- where everyone is essentially doing the same) and that's the domain of already giant tech companies. There can be a lot of good use cases in teaching far-off industries on how to use AI (manufacturing, etc.) but that's essentially a consulting business which will have a limited window. So lots of little successes is completely achievable; massive successes I hardly doubt.

In my view philosophy is important in and of itself, because these are natural questions about our existence which many brilliant people have thought about and written on for centuries. And these are very worth reading.

Second, because it illuminates good ways of life.

Third, because of the reason you mentioned.

"In his view, AI businesses are also different from regular startups because you generally get a closed feedback loop that allows you to quickly see what works (and what doesn’t)."

What is he talking about here? First of all, this is just the basic lean startup methodology. Any startup (especially consumer ones) try to do that, i.e. A/B testing new features. Second, he may be referring to the case that once you have a big comprehensive dataset already gathered, then you can just iterate improving the model.

My (cynical) answer: good luck with that. The real issue with AI especially in mission-critical situations is data in edge cases. Even if you can improve on your train/test data, that barely translates to customer satisfaction unless the edge cases are treated well. And edge cases will be revealed very slowly by encountering data in the field. Just ask anybody working on voice-assistant agents (Alexa, Siri, Google one) or self-driving. It's not a fast loop by any means.

Of course, Ng probably knows all this which makes me feel even more bothered.

I mean these are great stuff. But do you plan to be a venture-backed company (i.e. looking for hyper-growth and an exit, e.g. acquisition or IPO) or are you planning on being some sort of LLP?

The problem is that though the above may currently be a profitable business, I can't see how you will generate a "moat" and mature into a monopoly or a big market share in a vertical.

Like H2O and carbon and stuff?

That's right. It definitely helps hiring. In the executive level by fancier titles (rather be one of thousand VPs or CFO of Waymo, it's not even a comparison), but also at more junior levels. The usual marketing spiel there is we are like a "startup" but with the resources of a giant company.

In general I think separating brands is a good idea. And I think, at least from technical perspective (not legal perspective) you shouldn't blame Google in case something goes bad, and rather Waymo. After all, the set of people running Google search or Android are very different from those managing the self-driving car project.

In some sense, a single entity Google is an illusion so best to avoid it.