That is the one insight that I wished I truly understand years ago. After figured out that intelligence barely means anything, I thought that willpower would be the most important characteristics (because of endurance, perseverance yada yada you know).
Turned out that just like physical muscle, mental muscle get exhausted and you can run out of them. You really can't exert your willpower all the time, and have to preserve them for the really tough time. As human tends to do, we reverse to our habits for the majority of our lives. Well, I hope it's not a lesson learned too late.
That said, training for habits is damn hard.
The method trains you to add a new habit to your life by doing a tiny habit every day, anchored to an already existing habit. For example, "Before I visit Hacker News, I will drop down and do TWO pushups." Eventually, you can grow your new habit to make it a bigger part of your life.
When you've firmly established a new facet of discipline to the point that it is internalized and becomes automatic, that's when you've got a new beneficial habit. I like how Ng nails that in an almost understated way.
And a week later was found to have cheated in said test, apologized, and withdrew its results.
More seriously, the cheating incident linked in the above article could be an example of the autonomy of people at Baidu. The breaking of the rules had to do with testing too many times in a single period of time, via multiple email addresses. They might have got a little over-enthusiastic letting multiple teams work on it in parallel.
"I don't work on preventing AI from turning evil for the same reason that I don't work on combating overpopulation on the planet Mars."
As he points out later in the interview, much of the recent gains have been due to a great increase in data and computational power. The history of AI is replete with incredibly overoptimistic predictions of achieving Strong AI. Andrew's focus on the current, important problems of the field bodes well for the future of Baidu's AI work.
So I am puzzled by your comment - you seem to be talking about supervised learning, but I think the network was trained unsupervised.
> a rather large deep neural network, which was trained unsupervised to encode general images (not just cats)
seem to be in contradiction, afaict, or was general vector initialized rather close general images?
To force to your mind to work creatively you must feed your mind with lots of examples and experiences. And the suggested way to accelerate the learning process is via showing off corner cases.
Innovation places us in a field in which the corner cases are unknown unknowns, his workshop is about an strategy to detect and anticipate corner cases in uncharted territories. That amounts to finding the fount of creativity, and that is not an easy feat.
Edited n+1 times for learning English.
I think that's probably an exaggeration. A better way to say it might be: intelligence only takes you so far, and true achievement requires something more.
To me, that the top comment right now is about how Baidu "cheated" on an AI benchmark says both that no one can have perfect oversight, but also that no matter your other achievements, someone will always point out a shortcoming.
So many people don't get this. When parents send you to learn a profession, don't say "I'll do what I want". You can always do it later.
Instead, go get a proper, extensive education in anything - it will help you immensely, and you might find that you love doing what you learned.
Otherwise, you may waste years being stuck in a loop of finding yourself and your purpose, which sometimes really sucks...
It might be rather crass to say I'm skeptical of Dr. Ng's cultural perspective, but I am. In the US, it's a badge of honor to have achieved the means to buy a genuine Gibson Les Paul. In the popular culture of looking like a success, such as Baidu, it's relatively acceptable to simply make a copy, often lacking in the craftsmanship and utility of the original, simply to have the appearance of success. I'm not saying the US doesn't have some very blatant issues of posturing (the "30,000 dollar millionaire") based on access to credit, no, that's not fair in this context.
I believe that the ability to innovate and to be creative are teachable processes.
That's a big red flag to me. Teaching "creativity" is inherently encouraging insubordinate thought processes. That doesn't make sense. There are teachable avenues to capitalize on the inherent perspective that a student may have, one of rebellion and unique perspective, but teaching creativity is, well, about as far fetched to me as real, genuine AI. It might be possible, but probably not in my lifetime.
I'd like to relate this back to education in that "a grade that isn't earned is no mark of distinction at all" because the pursuit of being good is fine, but to be excellent means once there's focus, it's okay to fail now and again. There is so much evidence of blatant, endemic fraud in China that touting Baidu must come with appropriate skepticism. Just like the Moeller Flying Car in the US.