

An Open Letter to Larry Page on the Matter of Hiring Ray Kurzweil - iandanforth
https://plus.google.com/u/1/116142634401803337174/posts/cvQriTgKBG3

======
Tichy
Nonsense. Why shouldn't AIs be possible in completely different environments
than humans? The assumption that bodily experience is required is just wrong.
Why shouldn't an AI be able to live on the internet, for example?

Also, human brains are actually also just computers in a box with some wires
to the outside world. We can not even be sure that the outside world exists,
we only model it based on the signals that come through the wires.

~~~
spullara
I think he is arguing that we have an existence proof of exactly one type of
intelligence and to assume that we can skip understanding that one and create
a new kind is pretty far fetched.

~~~
iandanforth
>> pretty far fetched.

I would say 'more difficult than it needs to be.' But essentially correct.

------
thibauts
Most importantly, building a machine that can _really_ communicate with us
without giving it a body is obviously a dead end. If the point for Ray is
mastering language in AI, then I think Ian is right.

Reading "Methaphors we live by" By George Lakoff really opened my mind on this
subject. Mastering not only the forms of language, but the meaning, and so the
concepts, requires an extensive amount of interaction with the world through a
human body.

Just think bout the development of a child that can't touch, hear, see, smell,
or can't feel any emotion. What about his communication skills ? We do have
exemples.

It is an engineers dream that communication would be devoid of emotions,
shared experience, and many other things fundamentally born from experience.
We all know this to be false if we care to study a little about communication
outside of the realm of engineering.

AI may be possible without a human body, but if there is to be communication,
then there is to be a body whatever its form, or a simple form of what we call
a "self". In my (lacking) knowledge, embodied AI is the only branch of AI to
have considered this deeply.

Ian may be right. Maybe we rush to the conclusion without taking many things
into account. Maybe this is the curse of a branch of CS that gave to much
promises from the start.

Then AI is probably too broad of a term. Some things in intelligence may be in
our reach, some others not.

~~~
iandanforth
If you haven't read it, it sounds like you would also enjoy 'Louder than
Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning'
([http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-
Meaning/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-
Meaning/dp/0465028292))

I haven't ready Metaphors we live by, I'll pick it up!

------
newobj
Some letters are best left closed. "An Open Letter To..." is just short hand
for "blog entry I wrote with link bait name drop".

~~~
iandanforth
I admit to the tactic, but received extremely helpful criticism and rapid
response. I do genuinely hope that Mr. Page reads the letter though.

------
rpm4321
I'm very skeptical of this recent emphasis on the theory that our complete
sensory experience has to be simulated (or replicated via robotics) in order
for a strong AI to learn.

All you need to do is read a bit about Helen Keller to know that language
should be a sufficient window into our world:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller>

~~~
iandanforth
I make the argument that 'some' of the sensory experience must be available
and that interaction with the real world is crucial. To your point about Ms.
Keller, I have used this example myself as to why robotics should focus more
on the sensation of touch and it's why I commissioned the development of a
low-cost etextile robotic skin from a brilliant designer/engineer at MIT. That
project (rSkin) can be found here ([http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-
Open-Source-Robot-Skin...](http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-Source-
Robot-Skin/))

~~~
Harkins
Where did you make the argument? I see you making the claim, but there's
nothing arguing it, no evidence. There's just the vague thought experiment
about extracting signal from noise.

To point it out another way: humans can't be intelligent because they are
lacking in six senses that Martians have. It's that even richer experience
that enables true intelligence; without these qualia and the vital marrow of
the foundation of the core of the heart of really truly scotsmany work, humans
can't be intellegent. Can you knock down this claim without knocking down
yours as well?

------
jspthrowaway2
He joined Google as Director of Engineering. He didn't join Google as Director
of AI Research. Yes, we all read that Ray's intended project was what got
Larry Page to hire him, but Director of Engineering over an organization of
thousands of engineers is a task all its own. I can't imagine that Ray
Kurzweil shows up to work in the morning and tinkers about with his pet
project all day; running Google's entire engineering team is something most of
us should recognize that we are not adequately prepared to do at this point in
our lives.

This entire letter just strikes me as in extremely poor taste. You disagree
with Ray Kurzweil's views on AI, because they don't align with yours or your
company's[1], so you write an open letter to Larry Page effectively saying
that he hired the wrong guy and should have hired you? Very, very
transparently self-serving. I realize the self-service was never written
verbatim, but it is the subtext; what other purpose would there be to write
this letter? "His AI won't work, mine will."

I also have a very strong and violent distaste for anybody who tells me
something won't work before even daring to try it on their own. The contrarian
engineer, "oh, that will never work," often muttered in reply to using some
piece of architecture he has no experience with. He never apologizes when it
works, either. Who are you to say what's possible and impossible? Maybe Ray
Kurzweil knows something you don't?

Why don't we quietly commend a distinguished engineer and inventor with a
decades-long career (undoubtedly, longer than this guy has been alive) for
being offered a position worthy of his résumé and leave it at that, often-
controversial views aside? Everybody gets caught up in Ray Kurzweil's futurist
thinking and forgets that he invented some pretty pedestrian stuff that you
and I rely upon daily.

[1]:
[https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%...](https://embodiedai.pbworks.com/w/page/29940748/Welcome%20to%20Embodied%20AI)

EDIT: Scott Draves corrected me on my assumption of what a GOOG Director of
Engineering is, below. I'm quite wrong.

~~~
iandanforth
Hrm. This is a valid critique, I'm sorry it came off like this.

Let me say this, if I'm wrong, and I very well might be, I won't have a
moments hesitation in lauding his success. Just as you rightly point out Mr.
Kurzweil should be lauded for his many _past_ successes. I wrote this because
I care deeply about this topic and want very much for Mr. Page, Mr. Kurzweil,
all of us to succeed. I happen to have a bit of experience and knowledge that
inform these beliefs but to me this is a goal far too important for ego, so if
I'm wrong it won't stop me from cheering.

I appreciate your comment and will try to take your viewpoint into
consideration in the future.

Thanks.

~~~
jspthrowaway2
Thank you for being reasonable in your response, and I'm glad that you've
taken the comment to heart.

I agree with another commenter: I think this letter would have been better
left closed. I had the privilege of meeting Ray Kurzweil last year in New York
at an intimate talk (he was annoyed he had to cut his preso down to an hour),
and he's a genuinely smart guy and a real pleasure to talk with. That being
said, he has some genuinely bananas-crazy ideas, and they might work or they
might not. I'm happy to see him try on the off chance they will, though, and
I'm glad Google is paying him to explore some.

I know a lot about Paxos after spending years studying it and its
implementations, but I'm not going to openly and publicly criticize Mike
Burrows for his work on Google's Chubby. He knows a _lot_ of things that I
don't, and I'm smart enough to realize that. I'm more game to learn from his
work than criticize Google for hiring him. I _do_ take who a person is into
account when thinking about their body of work, but only in the positive.

That's where I'm coming from. You care about all of us working together and
succeeding, yet try to divide with your letter, so it's a bit strange. That's
all.

~~~
iandanforth
I've edited the letter a bit with a note of the help I got from HN. Do you
still feel it is divisive?

