Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgeecollins | Hacker News Reader

I assume you are trolling, but in case someone misses your user name: To say that the director of the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab for ten years and the founder of the a successful AI workstation company and the most successful robotics company in the world "has a history of skepticism about AI" is idiotic.

View on HN

not trolling. I don't think you know Brooks well enough, i've been following him since the 90s. Rodney Brooks is famous for his subsumption architecture and disregard of statistical methods. Because of the failures of Marvin Minsky GOFAI, the previous director of MIT AI, he went in the opposite direction completely and became highly skeptical of AI while serving as MIT AI head. This was the AI winter days of the 90s.

Why create a name "totaldick" to make a single post if not to troll? My response would be: You don't head the most prestigious AI lab in world with pure skepticism.

I think you have elaborated on your true objection, his past skepticism about statistical methods. I don't think that equates to a blanket skepticism. I also refer you to the talk in my original post. He points out that there are breakthroughs and pitfalls that are unanticipated. He outlines specific pitfalls to autonomous driving that he feels no one has adequately addressed.

This is my only account, just signed up recently, and the name was just spur of the moment. Sorry if it comes across as trolling, that wasn't my intention. I just know a bit about Rodney Brooks, am a fan of his work, so I gave my 2 cents.

I believe that you're not trolling but could you please email us (hn@ycombinator.com) with a clearly-non-trolling username that we can replace "totaldick" with? A name like that amounts to subtly trolling other users with every post you make.

Why?

There's certainly people who work with particular tech that are pessimistic or optimistic about it.

True. But if you listen to his interview it is clear that he is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. He recognizes that unanticipated breakthroughs are likely. His point is that there are too many unsolved problems for a quick development of useful driverless cars. He goes through the issues in some detail, but to offer one: real world drivers need to break the law all the time in order to not get stuck in traffic. How do you decide when it is OK to break the law? Who will accept the liability associated with a car that sometimes breaks the law. Etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com