Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've scanned a lot of literature on various AI fields over the last few years (And Jeesh, we should say AI if we're talking getting superb, actually-intelligent algorithms as opposed to the work-a-day, reliable algorithms that "machine learning" arguably already has).

I would contend that there can be a "significant" seeming amount of literature on field X but field X may still wind-up not pursued in the larger scheme of things.

Often what happens is a single individual or small circle, gets interested in a given field and researches it among things for as long as the funding persists and then once the funding dries up they move on. Or one person has tenure, keeps researching but everyone else moves on because it doesn't look like a way to keep getting funding.

Even more, as the author mentions, a big question is what approaches are taught as the way to do it (and I guess it again comes down whether you're aiming for just machine-learning/a-better-heuristic-statistics-for-big-data or if you are aiming for moving towards intelligent algorithms, even if intelligence means just flexible adaptivity).

Yes, you can find lots of results if you search for "online learning", say. Otoh, for whatever given algorithm that has mindshare currently, is there a quest to find an online version? My sampling of the literature says no and I happen to agree with the author that online processing could be an important piece of artificial intelligence advances.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: