How Google's Smart Compose for Gmail works – and did it fake its robo-caller demo? Hello, here's our weekly AI roundup. We have more information on how Google's sentence prediction in Smart Compose for Gmail works, as well as some questions about its Duplex robo-caller system. Also, decision trees to classify the mating calls of frogs and toads to study climate change. Too lazy? Let AI write your emails …
Isn't smart compose just the same as when you are typing on your phone and it tries to guess the next word you want (then shows it at the top of the keyboard)?
Am I the only one that has tried to write whole text messages using just the proposed words at the top of the keyboard, whilst trying to retain the meaning of the message and some semblance of sentence construction?
To Build Truly Intelligent Machines, Teach Them Cause and Effect
As much as I look into what’s being done with deep learning, I see they’re all stuck there on the level of associations. Curve fitting. That sounds like sacrilege, to say that all the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just fitting a curve to data. From the point of view of the mathematical hierarchy, no matter how skillfully you manipulate the data and what you read into the data when you manipulate it, it’s still a curve-fitting exercise, albeit complex and nontrivial. ... I’m very impressed, because we did not expect that so many problems could be solved by pure curve fitting. It turns out they can. But I’m asking about the future — what next? Can you have a robot scientist that would plan an experiment and find new answers to pending scientific questions? That’s the next step.
AlphaGo Zero tops the list, guzzling more than 1000 petaflops per second per day
That would be an accelerating, possibly driven by Dark Energy.
The actual number is "petaflops per second times days", i.e. "petaflops".
"1000 petaflops per second days" is 1000 petaflops/s for 1 day or 1 petaflops/s for 1000 days. Ergo, 86400 exaflops.
This whole paragraph was utter gibberish.
"A petaflops per second per day is equivalent to performing about 1015 neural net operations per second a day."
No, a petaFLOPS is 10^15 FLOATING POINT OPERATIONS PER SECOND. Unless those neural net operations happen to be precisely ONE FLOP then it's not true.
And all this talk of FLOPS per second per day. It's FLOPS, just FLOPS, the OPS already is Ops Per Second. You may use a petaflops of compute for a day, but the wording didn't convey that information at all. If you're consistently using one petaFLOPS of compute then you've no business putting per second or per day on the end as it already tells everything you need to know.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
