It seemed really amazing that you could write a few lines of code and have it learn to do interesting things.
Interpretation
The quote highlights the fascinating potential of coding and machine learning.
Andrew Ng expresses awe at the capability of writing a simple program that can enable machines to learn and perform complex tasks. This reflects the transformative power of technology, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence, where a few lines of code can lead to remarkable advancements and innovations.
In practice
During a tech conference, to emphasize the impact of coding in AI advancements.
AI has been making tremendous progress in machine translation, self-driving cars, etc. Basically, all the progress I see is in specialised intelligence. It might be hundreds or thousands of years or, if there is an unexpected breakthrough, decades.
Most of the value of deep learning today is in narrow domains where you can get a lot of data. Here's one example of something it cannot do: have a meaningful conversation.
Imagine if we can just talk to our computers and have it understand, 'Please schedule a meeting with Bob for next week.' Or if each child could have a personalized tutor. Or if self-driving cars could save all of us hours of driving.
A single neuron in the brain is an incredibly complex machine that even today we don't understand. A single 'neuron' in a neural network is an incredibly simple mathematical function that captures a minuscule fraction of the complexity of a biological neuron.
None of us today know how to get computers to learn with the speed and flexibility of a child.
I've been to so many manufacturing plants. I've yet to walk into one where I did not think AI solutions wouldn't help.
We want to build technology that everybody loves using, and that affects everyone. We want to create beautiful, intuitive services and technologies that are so incredibly useful that people use them twice a day. Like they use a toothbrush. There aren't that many things people use twice a day.
The marketplace judges technologies by their practical effectiveness, by whether they succeed or fail to do the job they are designed to do.
Anyone who has had actual contact with the making of the inventions that built the radio art knows that these inventions have been the product of experiment and work based on physical reasoning, rather than on the mathematicians' calculations and formulae. Precisely the opposite impression is obtained from many of our present day text books and publications.
Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information. But in the digital world, whether it's digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules - not just for governments but for private companies.
Well, Apple invented the PC as we know it, and then it invented the graphical user interface as we know it eight years later (with the introduction of the Mac). But then, the company had a decade in which it took a nap.
My own theory is that we are in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.