We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Pranav Shyam • 8 years ago

"the godfather of deep learning". How many times should you corrected in that regard ? :)

Freddie Frogskin • 8 years ago

Che Guevara was a murdering communist racist. Grow up.

Lazar Prodanovic • 8 years ago

Not even close as much as the father of progressive open democracy. Guevara served as a useful full (political term).

Freddie Frogskin • 8 years ago

Che Guevara was a homophobic (whatever that means), avowedly racist, murdering, narcissistic, communist dope. An idiot's fool. Thankfully a dead communist fool.

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

Racist? Murdering? You don't know much about the guy but what the hell... this is the internet.

Freddie Frogskin • 8 years ago

OK genius - I'll Google that for you:

http://www.thecommentator.c...

http://www.worldaffairsjour...

http://www.politifact.com/f...

Please grow the hell up. This commie murderer is a posterboy for deluded idiots, who think that wearing the tshirt makes them interesting. No it doesn't. Read and learn.

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

Ha ha ha... I think there should be some Donald Trump comment on Guevara or something from some Faux pundit to complete your argument mate. A racist? The guy was a friend of Patrice Lumumba for christ's sake. At the same time in the Carolinas, blacks were forbidden to ride on the same bus with whites and cops were blooding each and every civil rights march.

I 'm not a fan of the guy or even close to his ideology. But having witnessed what happens in South America first hand, I can only understand his, and not only his, actions. At the time we were happily bleeding them dry and installing murdering juntas man. No surprise Guevaras appeared all over.

el1jones • 8 years ago

in other news..Sarah Connor has gone missing

darryl • 8 years ago

Yeah, but can it find Waldo faster than a human? That's the real test.

-d

Night Lithium • 8 years ago

The answer is yes.

Owen Iverson • 8 years ago

An amazing time to be alive!

trisul • 8 years ago

It is also an excellent time time to die, much less painful than it used to be.

Lazar Prodanovic • 8 years ago

Tau. How about leaving a riple in existence? 😉

trisul • 8 years ago

How true, may they be memorable ripples, that bring on smiles and banish suffering.

Guest • 8 years ago
Night Lithium • 8 years ago

That's one of the major goals, but the hurdle is defining a universal fitness function for software quality. If we had that, unit tests would work totally differently, and recursively improving A.I. would be a stone's throw away.

Joaquim Ventura • 8 years ago

And with this Google will succeed in the same manner as with MapReduce.
This software will grant companies and individuals very powerful AI, basically for free, but will make all of them fall neatly lock-step behind Google.
Only companies the size of Amazon or Facebook will even attempt at creating something with a different basis (and even there, it will be a hard sell for developers) and TensorFlow will become the Last Universal Ancestor of most if not all future AIs.
I think this is great, in as such as AI development will be greatly accelerated worldwide, but we must not forget that there will also be a price to pay.

DonGateley • 8 years ago

There is also a lot of money to be earned by programming contractors who put in the effort to grasp all of it to the point of utility. The demand for such programmers will be huge.

Marc Winter • 8 years ago

What we need is a TRUE open source equivalent AI, a Linux of sorts in the world of machine learning. It is a shame that so many (otherwise) brilliant AI scientists have decided to sell out to this greedy monopolistic entity rather than working on independent open source AI (without holding back anything), but then again, we know that many scientists have some problems with morals not just since the atomic bomb...

NegroSven • 8 years ago

By Google open sourcing TensorFlow it hopes to create a monopoly on the infinite commercial applications made available for it. TensorFlow is free for now while it is being slowly assimilated into every aspect of technology, then once it is accepted as the standard deep learning algorithm Google will charge like a Roman chariot for it. Brilliant move.

Antrotskin • 8 years ago

This would be the same fear as with Microsoft with c#, untill an ISO Standard is issued

NegroSven • 8 years ago

Google has the only enablers that can make it happen. Trusted global recognition. Embedded government power(NSA). Billion$. No fear(never that). Just truth(always!).

Andy Chow • 8 years ago

You're obviously unfamiliar with the Apache 2 license. If you're stupid, remain quiet.

NegroSven • 8 years ago

I am very familiar with the Apache 2 license. Means nothing. You must be cognitively challenged if you believe otherwise.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

well it means a bit more than nothing. it means anyone can use that version of the software in their own software any way they want, and modify it any way they want, forever and ever

NegroSven • 8 years ago

... that is until licenses are revoked, or cancelled by the issuing authority. Licenses(which I know quite a bit about) are nothing special.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

sure but revoking the license can only apply to new licenses issued, not the past ones granted

NegroSven • 8 years ago

Uhhh no. Licenses can be revoked then cancelled without reason. Usually just the latter.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

some can, depends on the license. for example all GPL licenses are written to be non-revokeable, and AL2 is fully GPL-compatible

NegroSven • 8 years ago

*smh*
What don't you understand about the nature of licenses?

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

i guess i dont understand how a particular type of license that expressly stipulates that it cant be revoked, can be revoked..?

NANOTRIK • 8 years ago

They can release new versions under different licensing models in the future. This happened to a lot of startups like Makerbot 3d printer or Repetier 3d printer software...you can download version 1.0 with source codes, but from version 2.0 to current 4.0 it's commercial. This happens in real world...

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

sure but only the new versions can be released under a different license. but thanks to the particular license they already used, Apache 2, it cant be revoked for prior releases. not all licenses work that way of course

NANOTRIK • 8 years ago

Of course, your are right from this point of view. Apache 2: "The Apache License is permissive in that it does not require a derivative work of the software, or modifications to the original, to be distributed using the same license". But it sometimes happen that company stops actively developing a software and will distribute new version under proprietary license. Then it's up to the community to keep pace with commercial features.

Ilya Geller • 8 years ago

Meanwhile Oracle already structures unstructured data:
1. Oracle obtains statistics on queries and data from the data itself, internally'.
3. Oracle gets 100% patterns from data.
4. Oracle uses synonyms searching.
5. Oracle indexes data by common dictionary.
6. Oracle killed SQL: SQL, Structured Query Language either does not use
statistics at all or uses manually assigned one.IBM should stop to use
SQL.
The structuring of data is the way to AI.

Lazar Prodanovic • 8 years ago

& you think Google didn't do that already? & they (Google) have much more gathered data.
Try out handwriting input method from Google (Android app) even for normal use you will need a pen. By the way this is concerned (still) asas a holy grail in the AI world. Google can eat Oracle any time they want, look how Java get off from all Chrome platform right after a Oracles low suit for usage of Java without patent right in lo lv Android. Not a fair fight but Oracle is not concerned as a very ethical player anyway...

Ilya Geller • 8 years ago

it's all patented. google has not a license. thanks! I told my lawyers

prime1987 • 8 years ago

Journalists, yes even WIRED ones - please stop calling this "AI". Even in the body of the article the phrase "machine learning" is more or less correctly used, not AI.

This isn't mere pedantry. Using hyped and just plain ignorant terms confuses the picture and degrades the language. It's important here because this is science, it's not some vacuous activity like marketing or fashion. We need to identify things accurately, else we cannot discuss them meaningfully.

Given that real AI will bring an absolutely pivotal, seismic transformation of our world, we should reserve the term's use for when it matters ... because it is going to matter, more than helping catalogue a few photos.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

at what point do you say it can be called AI? for instance if the system recognizes tombstones more or less on its own, what component of intelligence is missing from that?

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

"at what point do you say it can be called AI"?

Passing the Turing test.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

the turing test is only intended to measure whether intelligence is equivalent to human intelligence

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

That's why it's important for humans. If the issue was computers that simulate the behaviour of snails, well this has indeed been achieved a long time ago and every computer running snail behaviour models is intelligent. But historically, the term means something that can mimic/achieve human abstruct thinking. Even if we can't define what abstruct thinking is.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

no, intelligence need not be human-equivalent to be called intelligence. my question is: what part of the concept of intelligence is missing from TensorFlow?

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

I said nothing about intelligence in general. I wrote about "artificial intelligence", which is a term. Terms have historic content and AI's historic background is related to Turing and his test. If we remove the historic background AI means nothing, cause, as I wrote, even a 90's desktop could run snail behaviour models - but nobody considers it AI. Maybe it sounds restrictive but that's what terms are for. In this particular case, the term "learning machine" is broader and devoid of history, so it's more appropriate.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

nope. simply put, AI technology exists, despite not yet ever having properly passed the turing test

alex alexiou • 8 years ago

If you say so...

Lazar Prodanovic • 8 years ago

It really depends how you look at it...
A lot of well trained patterns along with formal logic can even form the abstract forms of ideas & this goes for the upper part of humanity concerning the IQ test as it is. We are certainly far from this but their is not much more to it in the way we think. AI won't be able to really resolve this until it have it's (or at least to it) real existence (to experience emotional IQ, existentialism...), I am certain we are not redy to give it one (thanks to our past as well as our current form of behavior with that "intelligence"). The animals have a certain intelligence and it's based on trained or birth implanted behavioral forms.

Ray • 8 years ago

If I can show it a bunch of videos of people eating and it can figure out what a meal is then I call that intelligence. (I know people dumber than that) It's definitely artificial so, at exactly what level of intelligence do you consider to be good enough for you. (or are you reserving the term for something that is self aware)

Tiago Barnavelt • 8 years ago

I suspect all it does is compare patterns in photos on the Internet with the captions and words that go with them. It then finds recurring instances of certain image patterns going with certain word patterns. Just as Google Translate doesn't really understand what is being said, but simply compares human translations, this program doesn't understand what "dog" means, or what "a dog pooping on a lawn" means. It probably just finds patterns in Internet images and the captions that humans have given them. The algorithm is No doubt very clever in that it can produce meaningful sentences.

The word "artificial" is used to mean human-like intelligence, but not human (artificial). That is why every claim of AI is compared with humans.

peabody3000 • 8 years ago

did i miss it or does the article entirely skip a huge question: does google collect any of the data fed into apps using their AI? if theyre essentially getting eyeballs for their engine placed on potentially millions of new devices that would explain everything