Probability theory and AI | The Royal Society
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- Join Professor Zoubin Ghahramani to explore the foundations of probabilistic AI and how it relates to deep learning. 🔔Subscribe to our channel for exciting science videos and live events, many hosted by Brian Cox, our Professor for Public Engagement: bit.ly/3fQIFXB
#Probability #AI #DeepLearning #MachineLearning
Modern artificial intelligence (AI) is heavily based on systems that learn from data. Such machine learning systems have led to breakthroughs in the sciences and underlie many modern technologies such as automatic translation, autonomous vehicles, and recommender systems. Professor Ghahramani discusses some topics at the frontier of probabilistic machine learning and some of the societal challenges and opportunities for AI
This is the Royal Society Milner Prize Lecture 2021.
Watch next:
▶ Explainer: What is AI? • What is artificial int...
▶ You and AI with Professor Brian Cox: • You and AI presented b...
▶ You and AI with Jim Al-Khalili: • You and AI - with Jim ...
The Royal Society is a Fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.
▶royalsociety.org/
We’re also on Twitter ▶ / royalsociety
Facebook ▶ / theroyalsociety
Instagram ▶ / theroyalsociety
LinkedIn ▶ / the-royal-society
The Walsh Hadamard transform is a connectionist device.
ReLU is a switch.
Awesome
18:41
I'm comment 13 for a reason. Imagine this knowledge being used for geographic search patterns to find the areas with the highest probability of having soldiers hiding in trenches?
One should find it somewhat of a 'tell' when the term 'we' is applied.
a tell of what?
@@username2630 Define "We" in the context of its use in this discussion and you'll probably understand what was meant by the term "tell". But if you find you're aligned politically or ideologically with those speaking, you most likely won't even notice it, or you'll ignore it altogether, which should be your own "tell". You might even be part of the "we"? However, I (along with billions of others) am well aware that the vast multitude of humanity are not included in this "we" they speak of.
@@merlepatterson people working in research (industry or academia, irrespective of the field) use the term "we" because advances in the field arent made by any one person in a vacuum, everyone stands in the shoulders of giants.
@@username2630 A bit over-simplified. There are many contexts to how the term "we" is used and the meaning behind its use. When a politician says "we", they don't mean "We The People" most all of the time. They mean "we" as in the ones in control and the ones funding them.
@@merlepatterson what you just said isnt wrong but the guy in the video isnt a politician, hes a researcher i.e. someone who finds unsolved research questions and works on solving them
The brain is _way_ more than a flawed statistical machine. There's some really interesting research and theorizing from such gentlemen as the late Freeman Dyson, Stuart Hameroff, and ofc Roger Penrose. Other than that, aiming for complementary intelligence is good, tho, isn't that what it already is? A kind of appendage we can "google"?
What kind of intelligence?!
you meant cybernetics 2.0?! 🤣🤣🤣