South Korea Commits $863 Million To AI Research After AlphaGo 'Shock' (nature.com) 67
schwit1 writes: In reaction to the recent Go victory by a computer program over a human, the government of South Korea has quickly accelerated its plans to back research into the field of artificial intelligence with a commitment of $863 million and the establishment of [a] public/private institute. According to Nature.com, "It is not immediately clear whether the cash represents new funding, or had been previously allocated to AI efforts. But it does include the founding of a high-profile, public-private research center with participation from several Korean conglomerates, including Samsung, LG Electronics and Hyundai Motor, as well as the technology firm Naver, based near Seoul. The timing of the announcement indicates the impact [AlphaGo has on South Korea], which two days earlier wrapped up a 4-1 victory over grandmaster Lee Sedol in an exhibition match in Seoul. The feat was hailed as a milestone for AI research. But it also shocked the Korean public, stoking widespread concern over the capabilities of AI, as well as a spate of newspaper headlines worrying that South Korea was falling behind in a crucial growth industry. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has also announced the formation of a council that will provide recommendations to overhaul the nation's research and development process to enhance productivity. In her [March 17] speech, she emphasized that "artificial intelligence can be a blessing for human society" and called it "the fourth industrial revolution." She added, "Above all, Korean society is ironically lucky, that thanks to the 'AlphaGo shock,' we have learned the importance of AI before it is too late."' Not surprisingly, some academics are complaining that the money is going to [the] industry rather than the universities. Will this crony capitalistic approach produce any real development, or will it instead end up [being] a pork-laden jobs program for South Korean politicians?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> mad ninja coding skills
Is that like when your fellow employees say they've been doing lots of work but you never see it? Finally, a month later, they push their code into the trunk and it kills the project?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't kid yourself. When it comes to AI universities are actually mostly just centres for incompetence and wasting big baskets of money..
My own project, begun in 1990 has been developing the theory for building a Strong AI since then - private research, no money no external backing.. With even a tiny bit of the kind of money the universities have wasted my project could have had a working machine by about 2005. The real problem with Strong AI is that it requires a lot of extrapolation and thinking well outs
Re: (Score:2)
learned the importance of AI before it is too late (Score:2)
Don't you get it? AI IS the endgame. (Score:3, Insightful)
The first organization to successfully develop advanced general artificial intelligence trained toward its goals and towards preventing the development of other AI wins. It just wins.
We can try to beat it, but we're the ant colony trying to stop the man from building a new house. He can outthink us at every turn.
Re: learned the importance of AI before it is too (Score:1)
Most likely before someone less snags up the multi billion dollar business and control over the technology lies mostly abroad...
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about SK or Japan but China has did some original thinking and decided it's cheaper to let others take the risks and pay for the R&D. Then they can just copy the end product.
Re: (Score:2)
"...The nail that sticks out the most is the first to be hammered in..."
It's not that they aren't capable of original thought and creativity, it's that the society is very conformist, and no-one will risk trying to do things differently. There are European cities like that too. In Summer everyone wears the exact same clothes that are shown in an H&M catalog.
Re: (Score:1)
Too late to save themselves from having their 'dumb' conglomerates eaten by Google and Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: learned the importance of AI before it is too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever controls the first general AI controls the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever controls the first general AI controls the world.
Assuming anyone controls it...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it could very well be the AI is in charge of itself. In which case, one can only hope it was instilled with a good sense of morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderate your expectations. Strong AI? We're not even close.
Perhaps I skimmed the articles too quickly, but who is talking about strong AI? Perhaps the most important take away here is what can be accomplished with AI research regardless of how far off strong AI is.
Re: (Score:3)
If South Korea are worried, it can't be because they didn't build a machine for playing Go before the Americans.
That's nothing... (Score:1)
Park Geun-hye is a fraud. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean unemployment?
Where To Go From Here? (Score:3)
I recall 20 years ago when Deep Blue won against Kasparov, people said that an AI would never be able to brute-force Go well enough to beat a human master. It may not have used only brute-force techniques, but AlphaGo surely did win. I expect that arrangements are being made for the AI to face off against the #1 world Go champion (Sedol was #3 IIRC) and it may even take some tweaking for it to triumph. However this raises the question: where do we move the goalposts to next? What does AI have to accomplish to change how we fundamentally think of it, and consider it as 'real AI'?
Many people have an AI assistant (ok a text-to-speech shortcut to a semantic search engine) in their pocket, and will soon be entrusting their lives daily to autonomous cars. Anyone else feeling like the singularity is coming?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else feeling like the singularity is coming?
No, not really. None of these machines show emergence. They perform specific tasks well and nothing else. There are no Asimov style robot brains out there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How many people can write songs, stories, or poems which meet human standards for quality and originality? Machines can now do all three, poorly, which makes them just as good at those tasks as the majority of humanity.
To be honest, I plagiarized this answer. In the movie "I, Robot" (which the Slashdotariat hates, but was not bad), the robot lead was confronted with just that question by a human. The exact exchange is,
"Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, y
Re: (Score:2)
Sonny the Robot could tell jokes, and hit the timing for a punch line. If a robot can do that, I'll consider it my equal.
It's not the big stuff I'm looking for. It's the common, everyday stuff: telling jokes, folding laundry, telling a picture from a person... all at the same time rather than one algorithm specialized to it. Like people do. I really don't know how far we are from that; it feels like it's 20 years off, same as always. But the AlphaGo thing (using a neural network which just just possibly be
Re: (Score:2)
What does AI have to accomplish to change how we fundamentally think of it, and consider it as 'real AI'?
Pass the Turing Test. The real Turing Test, not a pathetic make-believe one.
Re: (Score:2)
>When I can ask the AI 'I need a program that can beat any human at go' and it can deliver a product as good as AlphaGo then we'll truly have what counts as real AI.
Uh, if you can ask the AI that, then you already have an ASI. AlphaGo has taken at least 2 years to design along with the input of an entire team of programmers, experts, and go players.
No, if an AI can answer the question you want, it really has no need for humans any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
people said that an AI would never be able to brute-force Go well enough to beat a human master.
That's still true. They had to prune a lot. (Although they also threw massive resources at it).
Re: (Score:2)
Interacting with the real world seems to be the next big frontier. Some robots are already getting quite good at it. See how far robot vacuum cleaners and autonomous cars have come, for example. They have got a lot better at navigating and mapping their environment. Even so, making a cup of coffee is still rather difficult for robots.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What you have in your pocket is just a terminal that can call the search engine through the Internet. The actual search engine wouldn't fit in your pocket.
Japan tried that in the 1980s (Score:2)
with their Fifth Generation Computer Systems initiative. They demonstrated that just throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
They came out with ideas like TRON . Have smart appliances that could interact with each other. Turn the cooker on, and the extractor fan goes on as well. Turn the stereo on and the windows close (to stop neighbors hearing loud music). If your alarm clock goes on, the lights in the house go on.
There was considerable research into expert systems back then. They thought everything could be solved using binary decision trees. But then they realized that things weren't yes/no but more definitely/possibly/no eff
Re: (Score:2)
Turn the stereo on and the windows close
They must have a bit flipped somewhere, because every kid riding down the road in his ricer has the stereo full blast and the windows wide open. The worse the "music" the louder it's played. Now get off my lawn.
After Go ... (Score:2)
IBM faking it (Score:2)
On a semi-side note, other AI co's should sue IBM for their Watson ads because the ads make it sound like Watson is actually carrying on a conversation. It's all pre-scripted by humans, though.
Slashdot Flashback to 2006 (Score:2)
Back in 2006, I was asked on Slashdot what my advice would be to students interested in a career in AI. I told them to get their PhD under Hutter. Hutter's first students were founders of Google DeepMind thence AlphaGo.
I'm now, as then, advising investment in compression prizes [slashdot.org] for the same reason*. (And thanks to Matt Mahoney for pointing me to Hutter's AIXI theory way back then.)
*An additional reason today is founding "friendly AI" on understanding natural language. Before "friendliness [linkedin.com]", however one de
Jobs! (Score:2)
Full-on general AI not needed (Score:1)
All it will take for the inflexion point to happen is that the AI computer designs better AI computers than humans can.