A Momentary Flow

Updating Worldviews one World at a time

Tag Results

96 posts tagged Ai

Venture Capital Firm Appoints Machine Intelligence As Board Member
-
Hong Kong based venture capital firm Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) has appointed a machine learning program to its board. Called VITAL, it’s an “equal member” that will uncover trends “not immediately obvious to humans” in order to make investment recommendations. This is probably an attempt to attract media attention, but it could truly be the start of a larger trend; it’s the world’s first software program to be appointed as a board member. The move could also herald a new direction in the way venture capital is done. The tool was developed by Aging Analytics UK who’s licensing it out to DKV, a capital fund that focuses on companies developing therapies for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine. DKV will use VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to analyze financing trends in databases of life science companies in an effort to predict successful investments. It works by poring over massive data sets and applying machine learning to predict which life science companies will make successful investments. The company has already used VITAL to inform investment decisions in two start-up life science companies, Pathway Pharmaceuticals, Limited in Hong Kong and InSilico Medicine, Inc in Baltimore, USA. The long-term goal is to get the intelligence to the stage where it’ll be capable of autonomously allocating an investment portfolio. Eventually, the software is expected to get an equal vote on investment decisions. (via Venture Capital Firm Appoints Machine Intelligence As Board Member)

Venture Capital Firm Appoints Machine Intelligence As Board Member
-
Hong Kong based venture capital firm Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) has appointed a machine learning program to its board. Called VITAL, it’s an “equal member” that will uncover trends “not immediately obvious to humans” in order to make investment recommendations. This is probably an attempt to attract media attention, but it could truly be the start of a larger trend; it’s the world’s first software program to be appointed as a board member. The move could also herald a new direction in the way venture capital is done. The tool was developed by Aging Analytics UK who’s licensing it out to DKV, a capital fund that focuses on companies developing therapies for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine. DKV will use VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to analyze financing trends in databases of life science companies in an effort to predict successful investments. It works by poring over massive data sets and applying machine learning to predict which life science companies will make successful investments. The company has already used VITAL to inform investment decisions in two start-up life science companies, Pathway Pharmaceuticals, Limited in Hong Kong and InSilico Medicine, Inc in Baltimore, USA. The long-term goal is to get the intelligence to the stage where it’ll be capable of autonomously allocating an investment portfolio. Eventually, the software is expected to get an equal vote on investment decisions. (via Venture Capital Firm Appoints Machine Intelligence As Board Member)

The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win  .. The challenge is daunting. In 1994, machines took the checkers crown, when a program called Chinook beat the top human. Then, three years later, they topped the chess world, IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer besting world champion Garry Kasparov. Now, computers match or surpass top humans in a wide variety of games: Othello, Scrabble, backgammon, poker, even Jeopardy. But not Go. It’s the one classic game where wetware still dominates hardware. Invented over 2500 years ago in China, Go is a pastime beloved by emperors and generals, intellectuals and child prodigies. Like chess, it’s a deterministic perfect information game — a game where no information is hidden from either player, and there are no built-in elements of chance, such as dice.1 And like chess, it’s a two-person war game. Play begins with an empty board, where players alternate the placement of black and white stones, attempting to surround territory while avoiding capture by the enemy. That may seem simpler than chess, but it’s not. When Deep Blue was busy beating Kasparov, the best Go programs couldn’t even challenge a decent amateur. And despite huge computing advances in the years since — Kasparov would probably lose to your home computer — the automation of expert-level Go remains one of AI’s greatest unsolved riddles. (via The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win | Enterprise | WIRED)

The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win
..
The challenge is daunting. In 1994, machines took the checkers crown, when a program called Chinook beat the top human. Then, three years later, they topped the chess world, IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer besting world champion Garry Kasparov. Now, computers match or surpass top humans in a wide variety of games: Othello, Scrabble, backgammon, poker, even Jeopardy. But not Go. It’s the one classic game where wetware still dominates hardware. Invented over 2500 years ago in China, Go is a pastime beloved by emperors and generals, intellectuals and child prodigies. Like chess, it’s a deterministic perfect information game — a game where no information is hidden from either player, and there are no built-in elements of chance, such as dice.1 And like chess, it’s a two-person war game. Play begins with an empty board, where players alternate the placement of black and white stones, attempting to surround territory while avoiding capture by the enemy. That may seem simpler than chess, but it’s not. When Deep Blue was busy beating Kasparov, the best Go programs couldn’t even challenge a decent amateur. And despite huge computing advances in the years since — Kasparov would probably lose to your home computer — the automation of expert-level Go remains one of AI’s greatest unsolved riddles. (via The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win | Enterprise | WIRED)

Source Wired

But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me? -Preeminent scientists are warning about serious threats to human life in the not-distant future, including climate change and superintelligent computers. Most people don’t care.  - Sometimes Stephen Hawking writes an article that both mentions Johnny Depp and strongly warns that computers are an imminent threat to humanity, and not many people really care. That is the day there is too much on the Internet. (Did the computers not want us to see it?) Hawking, along with MIT physics professor Max Tegmark, Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, and Berkeley computer science professor Stuart Russell ran a terrifying op-ed a couple weeks ago in The Huffington Post under the staid headline “Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines.” It was loosely tied to the Depp sci-fi thriller Transcendence, so that’s what’s happening there. “It’s tempting to dismiss the notion of highly intelligent machines as mere science fiction,” they write. “But this would be a mistake, and potentially our worst mistake in history.” And then, probably because it somehow didn’t get much attention, the exact piece ran again last week in The Independent, which went a little further with the headline: “Transcendence Looks at the Implications of Artificial Intelligence—but Are We Taking A.I. Seriously Enough?” Ah, splendid. Provocative, engaging, not sensational. But really what these preeminent scientists go on to say is not not sensational. “An explosive transition is possible,” they continue, warning of a time when particles can be arranged in ways that perform more advanced computations than the human brain. “As Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, triggering what Vernor Vinge called a ‘singularity.’” Get out of here. I have literally a hundred thousand things I am concerned about at this exact moment. Do I seriously need to add to that a singularity? (via But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me? - James Hamblin - The Atlantic)

But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?
-
Preeminent scientists are warning about serious threats to human life in the not-distant future, including climate change and superintelligent computers. Most people don’t care.
-
Sometimes Stephen Hawking writes an article that both mentions Johnny Depp and strongly warns that computers are an imminent threat to humanity, and not many people really care. That is the day there is too much on the Internet. (Did the computers not want us to see it?) Hawking, along with MIT physics professor Max Tegmark, Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, and Berkeley computer science professor Stuart Russell ran a terrifying op-ed a couple weeks ago in The Huffington Post under the staid headline “Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines.” It was loosely tied to the Depp sci-fi thriller Transcendence, so that’s what’s happening there. “It’s tempting to dismiss the notion of highly intelligent machines as mere science fiction,” they write. “But this would be a mistake, and potentially our worst mistake in history.” And then, probably because it somehow didn’t get much attention, the exact piece ran again last week in The Independent, which went a little further with the headline: “Transcendence Looks at the Implications of Artificial Intelligence—but Are We Taking A.I. Seriously Enough?” Ah, splendid. Provocative, engaging, not sensational. But really what these preeminent scientists go on to say is not not sensational. “An explosive transition is possible,” they continue, warning of a time when particles can be arranged in ways that perform more advanced computations than the human brain. “As Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, triggering what Vernor Vinge called a ‘singularity.’” Get out of here. I have literally a hundred thousand things I am concerned about at this exact moment. Do I seriously need to add to that a singularity? (via But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me? - James Hamblin - The Atlantic)

The rise of the thinking machines
-
At the intersection of Big Data and artificial intelligence computers are quickly beginning to rival the decision making power of humans. While the technology has the capacity to offer vast improvements in precision and efficiency it also raises questions about how much responsibility should be ceded to machines and what humans’ role will be in the future workplace. (via The rise of the thinking machines - E & T Magazine)

The rise of the thinking machines
-
At the intersection of Big Data and artificial intelligence computers are quickly beginning to rival the decision making power of humans. While the technology has the capacity to offer vast improvements in precision and efficiency it also raises questions about how much responsibility should be ceded to machines and what humans’ role will be in the future workplace. (via The rise of the thinking machines - E & T Magazine)