Carbon Nanotube Transistors Finally Outperform Silicon

By Hugo Angel,

Photo: Stephanie Precourt/UW-Madison College of Engineering

Back in the 1990s, observers predicted that the single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) would be the nanomaterial that pushed silicon aside and created a post-CMOS world where Moore’s Law could continue its march towards ever=smaller chip dimensions. All of that hope was swallowed up by inconsistencies between semiconducting and metallic SWCNTs and the vexing issue of trying to get them all to align on a wafer.

The introduction of graphene seemed to take the final bit of luster off of carbon nanotubes’ shine, but the material, which researchers have been using to make transistors for over 20 years, has experienced a renaissance of late.
Now, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) have given SWCNTs a new boost in their resurgence by using them to make a transistor that outperforms state-of-the-art silicon transistors.
This achievement has been a dream of nanotechnology for the last 20 years,” said Michael Arnold, a professor at UW-Madison, in a press release. “Making carbon nanotube transistors that are better than silicon transistors is a big milestone,” Arnold added. “[It’s] a critical advance toward exploiting carbon nanotubes in logic, high-speed communications, and other semiconductor electronics technologies.
In research described in the journal Science Advances, the UW-Madison researchers were able to achieve a current that is 1.9 times as fast as that seen in silicon transistors. The measure of how rapidly the current that can travel through the channel between a transistor’s source and drain determines how fast the circuit is. The more current there is, the more quickly the gate of the next device in the circuit can be charged .

The key to getting the nanotubes to create such a fast transistor was a new process that employs polymers to sort between the metallic and semiconducting SWCNTs to create an ultra-high purity of solution.
We’ve identified specific conditions in which you can get rid of nearly all metallic nanotubes, [leaving] less than 0.01 percent metallic nanotubes [in a sample],” said Arnold.
The researchers had already tackled the problem of aligning and placing the nanotubes on a wafer two years ago when they developed a process they dubbed “floating evaporative self-assembly.” That technique uses a hydrophobic substrate and partially submerges it in water. Then the SWCNTs are deposited on its surface and the substrate removed vertically from the water.
In our research, we’ve shown that we can simultaneously overcome all of these challenges of working with nanotubes, and that has allowed us to create these groundbreaking carbon nanotube transistors that surpass silicon and gallium arsenide transistors,” said Arnold.
In the video below, Arnold provides a little primer on SWCNTs and what his group’s research with them could mean to the future of electronics.

In continuing research, the UW-Madison team will be aiming to replicate the manufacturability of silicon transistors. To date, they have managed to scale their alignment and deposition process to 1-inch-by-1-inch wafers; the longer-term goal is to bring this up to commercial scales.

Arnold added: “There has been a lot of hype about carbon nanotubes that hasn’t been realized, and that has kind of soured many people’s outlook. But we think the hype is deserved. It has just taken decades of work for the materials science to catch up and allow us to effectively harness these materials.

ORIGINAL: IEEE

By Dexter Johnson
6 Sep 2016

Quantum Computers Explained – Limits of Human Technology

By Hugo Angel,

Where are the limits of human technology? And can we somehow avoid them? This is where quantum computers become very interesting. 
Check out THE NOVA PROJECT to learn more about dark energy: www.nova.org.au 


ORIGINAL: YouTube



  Category: Computing, Physics, Quantum
  Comments: Comments Off on Quantum Computers Explained – Limits of Human Technology

Robots Can Now Learn Just By Observing, Without Being Told What To Look For

By Hugo Angel,

Machines are getting smarter every day—and that is both good and terrifying.
[Illustrations: v_alex/iStock]
Scientists at the University of Sheffield have come up with a way for machines to learn just by looking. They don’t need to be told what to look for—they can just learn how a system works by observing it. The method is called Turing Learning and is inspired by Alan Turing’s famous test.
For a computer to learn, usually it has to be told what to look for. For instance, if you wanted to teach a robot to paint like Picasso, you’d train software to mimic real Picasso paintings. “Someone would have to tell the algorithms what is considered similar to a Picasso to begin with,” says Roderick Gross, in a news release.
Turing Learning would not require such prior knowledge, he says. It would use two computer systems, plus the original “system” you’re investigating: a shoal of fish, a Picasso painting, anything. One of the computer systems tries to copy the real-world system as closely as possible. The other computer is an observer. Its task is to watch the goings-on and try to discern which of the systems is real, and which is the copy. If it guesses right, it gets a reward. At the same time, the counterfeit system is rewarded if it fools the observer.
Proceeding like this, the counterfeit models get better and better, and the observer works out how to distinguish real from fake to a more and more accurate degree. In the end, it can not only tell real from fake, but it has also—almost as a by-product of the process—created a precise model of how the genuine system works.
The experiment is named after Alan Turing‘s famous test for artificial intelligence, which says that if a computer program can fool a human observer into believing it is a real person, then it can be considered intelligent. In reality this never really works, as a) convincing a person that you’re another person isn’t a guarantee of intelligence, and b) many computer programs have simply been designed to game the human observers.
Turing Learning, though, is actually practical. It can be used to teach robots certain behaviors, but perhaps more useful is the categorization it performs. Set a Turing Learning machine loose on a swarm of insects, for instance, and it could tease out details in the behavior of a bee colony that remain invisible to humans.
The systems can also be used to recognize abnormal behavior, without first teaching the system what constitutes abnormal behavior. The possibilities here are huge, because noticing oddities in otherwise uniform behavior is something we humans can be terrible at. Look at airport security, for example and how often TSA agents miss guns, explosives, and other weapons.
The technique could also be used in video games to make the virtual players act more like real human players to monitor livestock for odd behaviors that might signal health problems, and for security purposes like lie detection.
In some ways, the technology is terrifying, as computers are able to get to the very basics of how things behave. On the other hand, they still need to be told what to do with that knowledge, so at least there’s something for us puny humans to do in the world of the future.
ORIGINAL: FastCoExist
09.07.16

Deep Learning With Python & Tensorflow – PyConSG 2016

By Hugo Angel,

ORIGINAL: Pycon.SG
Jul 5, 2016
Speaker: Ian Lewis
Description
Python has lots of scientific, data analysis, and machine learning libraries. But there are many problems when starting out on a machine learning project. Which library do you use? How can you use a model that has been trained in your production app? In this talk I will discuss how you can use TensorFlow to create Deep Learning applications and how to deploy them into production.
Abstract
Python has lots of scientific, data analysis, and machine learning libraries. But there are many problems when starting out on a machine learning project. Which library do you use? How do they compare to each other? How can you use a model that has been trained in your production application?
TensorFlow is a new Open-Source framework created at Google for building Deep Learning applications. Tensorflow allows you to construct easy to understand data flow graphs in Python which form a mathematical and logical pipeline. Creating data flow graphs allow easier visualization of complicated algorithms as well as running the training operations over multiple hardware GPUs in parallel.
In this talk I will discuss how you can use TensorFlow to create Deep Learning applications. I will discuss how it compares to other Python machine learning libraries like Theano or Chainer. Finally, I will discuss how trained TensorFlow models could be deployed into a production system using TensorFlow Serve.
Event Page: https://pycon.sg
Produced by Engineers.SG

How a Japanese cucumber farmer is using deep learning and TensorFlow.

By Hugo Angel,

by Kaz Sato, Developer Advocate, Google Cloud Platform
August 31, 2016
It’s not hyperbole to say that use cases for machine learning and deep learning are only limited by our imaginations. About one year ago, a former embedded systems designer from the Japanese automobile industry named Makoto Koike started helping out at his parents’ cucumber farm, and was amazed by the amount of work it takes to sort cucumbers by size, shape, color and other attributes.
Makoto’s father is very proud of his thorny cucumber, for instance, having dedicated his life to delivering fresh and crispy cucumbers, with many prickles still on them. Straight and thick cucumbers with a vivid color and lots of prickles are considered premium grade and command much higher prices on the market.
But Makoto learned very quickly that sorting cucumbers is as hard and tricky as actually growing them.Each cucumber has different color, shape, quality and freshness,” Makoto says.
Cucumbers from retail stores
Cucumbers from Makoto’s farm
In Japan, each farm has its own classification standard and there’s no industry standard. At Makoto’s farm, they sort them into nine different classes, and his mother sorts them all herself — spending up to eight hours per day at peak harvesting times.
The sorting work is not an easy task to learn. You have to look at not only the size and thickness, but also the color, texture, small scratches, whether or not they are crooked and whether they have prickles. It takes months to learn the system and you can’t just hire part-time workers during the busiest period. I myself only recently learned to sort cucumbers well,” Makoto said.
Distorted or crooked cucumbers are ranked as low-quality product
There are also some automatic sorters on the market, but they have limitations in terms of performance and cost, and small farms don’t tend to use them.
Makoto doesn’t think sorting is an essential task for cucumber farmers. “Farmers want to focus and spend their time on growing delicious vegetables. I’d like to automate the sorting tasks before taking the farm business over from my parents.
Makoto Koike, center, with his parents at the family cucumber farm
Makoto Koike, family cucumber farm
The many uses of deep learning
Makoto first got the idea to explore machine learning for sorting cucumbers from a completely different use case: Google AlphaGo competing with the world’s top professional Go player.
When I saw the Google’s AlphaGo, I realized something really serious is happening here,” said Makoto. “That was the trigger for me to start developing the cucumber sorter with deep learning technology.
Using deep learning for image recognition allows a computer to learn from a training data set what the important “features” of the images are. By using a hierarchy of numerous artificial neurons, deep learning can automatically classify images with a high degree of accuracy. Thus, neural networks can recognize different species of cats, or models of cars or airplanes from images. Sometimes neural networks can exceed the performance of the human eye for certain applications. (For more information, check out my previous blog post Understanding neural networks with TensorFlow Playground.)

TensorFlow democratizes the power of deep learning
But can computers really learn mom’s art of cucumber sorting? Makoto set out to see whether he could use deep learning technology for sorting using Google’s open source machine learning library, TensorFlow.
Google had just open sourced TensorFlow, so I started trying it out with images of my cucumbers,” Makoto said. “This was the first time I tried out machine learning or deep learning technology, and right away got much higher accuracy than I expected. That gave me the confidence that it could solve my problem.
With TensorFlow, you don’t need to be knowledgeable about the advanced math models and optimization algorithms needed to implement deep neural networks. Just download the sample code and read the tutorials and you can get started in no time. The library lowers the barrier to entry for machine learning significantly, and since Google open-sourced TensorFlow last November, many “non ML” engineers have started playing with the technology with their own datasets and applications.

Cucumber sorting system design
Here’s a systems diagram of the cucumber sorter that Makoto built. The system uses Raspberry Pi 3 as the main controller to take images of the cucumbers with a camera, and 

  • in a first phase, runs a small-scale neural network on TensorFlow to detect whether or not the image is of a cucumber
  • It then forwards the image to a larger TensorFlow neural network running on a Linux server to perform a more detailed classification.
Systems diagram of the cucumber sorter
Makoto used the sample TensorFlow code Deep MNIST for Experts with minor modifications to the convolution, pooling and last layers, changing the network design to adapt to the pixel format of cucumber images and the number of cucumber classes.
Here’s Makoto’s cucumber sorter, which went live in July:
Here’s a close-up of the sorting arm, and the camera interface:

And here is the cucumber sorter in action:

Pushing the limits of deep learning
One of the current challenges with deep learning is that you need to have a large number of training datasets. To train the model, Makoto spent about three months taking 7,000 pictures of cucumbers sorted by his mother, but it’s probably not enough.
When I did a validation with the test images, the recognition accuracy exceeded 95%. But if you apply the system with real use cases, the accuracy drops down to about 70%. I suspect the neural network model has the issue of “overfitting” (the phenomenon in neural network where the model is trained to fit only to the small training dataset) because of the insufficient number of training images.
The second challenge of deep learning is that it consumes a lot of computing power. The current sorter uses a typical Windows desktop PC to train the neural network model. Although it converts the cucumber image into 80 x 80 pixel low-resolution images, it still takes two to three days to complete training the model with 7,000 images.
Even with this low-res image, the system can only classify a cucumber based on its shape, length and level of distortion. It can’t recognize color, texture, scratches and prickles,” Makoto explained. Increasing image resolution by zooming into the cucumber would result in much higher accuracy, but would also increase the training time significantly.
To improve deep learning, some large enterprises have started doing large-scale distributed training, but those servers come at an enormous cost. Google offers Cloud Machine Learning (Cloud ML), a low-cost cloud platform for training and prediction that dedicates hundreds of cloud servers to training a network with TensorFlow. With Cloud ML, Google handles building a large-scale cluster for distributed training, and you just pay for what you use, making it easier for developers to try out deep learning without making a significant capital investment.
These specialized servers were used in the AlphaGo match
Makoto is eagerly awaiting Cloud ML. “I could use Cloud ML to try training the model with much higher resolution images and more training data. Also, I could try changing the various configurations, parameters and algorithms of the neural network to see how that improves accuracy. I can’t wait to try it.

A lab founded by a tech billionaire just unveiled a major leap forward in cracking your brain’s code

By Hugo Angel,

This is definitely not a scene from “A Clockwork Orange.” Allen Brain Observatory
As the mice watched a computer screen, their glowing neurons pulsed through glass windows in their skulls.
Using a device called a two-photon microscope, researchers at the Allen Institute for Brain Science could peer through those windows and record, layer by layer, the workings of their little minds.
The result, announced July 13, is a real-time record of the visual cortex — a brain region shared in similar form across mammalian species — at work. The data set that emerged is so massive and complete that its creators have named it the Allen Brain Observatory.
Bred for the lab, the mice were genetically modified so that specific cells in their brains would fluoresce when they became active. Researchers had installed the brain-windows surgically, slicing away tiny chunks of the rodents’ skulls and replacing them with five-millimeter skylights.
Sparkling neurons of the mouse visual cortex shone through the glass as images and short films flashed across the screen. Each point of light the researchers saw translated, with hours of careful processing, into data: 
  • Which cell lit up? 
  • Where in the brain? 
  • How long did it glow? 
  • What was the mouse doing at the time? 
  • What was on the screen?

The researchers imaged the neurons in small groups, building a map of one microscopic layer before moving down to the next. When they were finished, the activities of 18,000 cells from several dozen mice were recorded in their database.

This is the first data set where we’re watching large populations of neurons’ activity in real time, at the cellular level,” said Saskia de Vries, a scientist who worked on the project, at the private research center launched by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.
The problem the Brain Observatory wants to solve is straightforward. Science still does not understand the brain’s underlying code very well, and individual studies may turn up odd results that are difficult to interpret in the context of the whole brain.
A decade ago, for example, a widely-reported study appeared to find a single neuron in a human brain that always — and only — winked on when presented with images of Halle Berry. Few scientists suggested that this single cell actually stored the subject’s whole knowledge of Berry’s face. But without more context about what the cells around it were doing, a more complete explanation remained out of reach.
When you’re listening to a cell with an electrode, all you’re hearing is [its activity level] spiking,” said Shawn Olsen, another researcher on the project. “And you don’t know where exactly that cell is, you don’t know its precise location, you don’t know its shape, you don’t know who it connects to.
Imagine trying to assemble a complete understanding of a computer given only facts like under certain circumstances, clicking the mouse makes lights on the printer blink.
To get beyond that kind of feeling around in the dark, the Allen Institute has taken what Olsen calls an “industrial” approach to mapping out the brain’s activity.
Our goal is to systematically march through the different cortical layers, and the different cell types, and the different areas of the cortex to produce a systematic, mostly comprehensive survey of the activity,” Olsen explained. “It doesn’t just describe how one cell type is responding or one particular area, but characterizes as much as we can a complete population of cells that will allow us to draw inferences that you couldn’t describe if you were just looking at one cell at a time.
In other words, this project makes its impact through the grinding power of time and effort.
A visualization of cells examined in the project. Allen Brain Observatory

Researchers showed the mice moving horizontal or vertical lines, light and dark dots on a surface, natural scenes, and even clips from Hollywood movies.

The more abstract displays target how the mind sees and interprets light and dark, lines, and motion, building on existing neuroscience. Researchers have known for decades that particular cells appear to correspond to particular kinds of motion or shape, or positions in the visual field. This research helps them place the activity of those cells in context.
One of the most obvious results was that the brain is noisy, messy, and confusing.
Even though we showed the same image, we could get dramatically different responses from the same cell. On one trial it may have a strong response, on another it may have a weak response,” Olsen said.
All that noise in their data is one of the things that differentiates it from a typical study, de Vries said.
If you’re inserting an electrode you’re going to keep advancing until you find a cell that kind of responds the way you want it to,” he said. “By doing a survey like this we’re going to see a lot of cells that don’t respond to the stimuli in the way that we think they should. We’re realizing that the cartoon model that we have of the cortex isn’t completely accurate.

Olsen said they suspect a lot of that noise emerges from whatever the mouse is thinking about or doing that has nothing to do with what’s on screen. They recorded videos of the mice during data collection to help researchers combing their data learn more about those effects.
The best evidence for this suspicion? When they showed the mice more interesting visuals, like pictures of animals or clips from the film “Touch of Evil,” the neurons behaved much more consistently.
We would present each [clip] ten different times,” de Vries said. “And we can see from trial to trial many cells at certain times almost always respond — reliable, repeatable, robust responses.
In other words, it appears the mice were paying attention.
Allen Brain Observatory

The Brain Observatory was turned loose on the internet Wednesday, with its data available for researchers and the public to comb through, explore, and maybe critique.

But the project isn’t over.
In the next year-and-a-half, the researchers intend to add more types of cells and more regions of the visual cortex to their observatory. And their long-term ambitions are even grander.
Ultimately,” Olson said,”we want to understand how this visual information in the mouse’s brain gets used to guide behavior and memory and cognition.
Right now, the mice just watch screens. But by training them to perform tasks based on what they see, he said they hope to crack the mysteries of memory, decision-making, and problem-solving. Another parallel observatory created using electrode arrays instead of light through windows will add new levels of richness to their data.
So the underlying code of mouse — and human — brains remains largely a mystery, but the map that we’ll need to unlock it grows richer by the day.
ORIGINAL: Tech Insider

Jul. 13, 2016

Where does intelligence come from?

By Hugo Angel,

Add caption
It is amazing how intelligent we can be. We can construct shelter, find new ways of hunting, and create boats and machines. Our unique intelligence has been responsible for the emergence of civilization.
But how does a set of living cells become intelligent? How can flesh and blood turn into something that can create bicycles and airplanes or write novels?
This is the question of the origin of intelligence.
This problem has puzzled many theorists and scientists, and it is particularly important if we want to build intelligent machines. They still lag well behind us. Although computers calculate millions of times faster than we do, it is we who understand the big picture in which these calculations fit. Even animals are much more intelligent than machines. A mouse can find its way in a hostile forest and survive. This cannot be said for our computers or robots.
The question of how to achieve intelligence remains a mystery for scientists.
Recently, however a new theory has been proposed that may resolve this very question. The theory is called practopoiesis and is founded in the most fundamental capability of all biological organisms—their ability to adapt.
Darwin’s theory of evolution describes one way how our genomes adapt. By creating offspring new combinations of genes are tested; the good ones are kept and the bad ones are disposed of. The result is a genome better adapted to the environment.
Practopoiesis tells us that somewhat similar adaptation mechanisms of trials and errors occur while an organism grows, while it digests food and also, while it acts intelligently or thinks.
For example, the growth of our body is not precisely programmed by the genes. Instead, our genes perform experiments, which require feedback from the environment and corrections of errors. Only with trial and errors can our body properly grow.
Our genes contain an elaborate knowledge of which experiments need to be done, and this knowledge of trial-and-error approaches has been acquired through eons of evolution. We kept whatever worked well for our ancestors.
However, this knowledge alone is not enough to make us intelligent.
To create intelligent behavior such as thinking, decision making, understanding a poem, or simply detecting one’s friend in a crowd of strangers, our bodies require yet another type of trial-and-error knowledge. There are mechanisms in our body that also contain elaborate knowledge for experimenting, but they are much faster. The knowledge of these mechanisms is not collected through evolution but through the development over the lifetime of an individual.
These fast adaptive mechanisms continually adjust the big network of our connected nerve cells. These adaptation mechanisms can change in an eye-blink the way the brain networks are effectively connected. It may take less than a second to make a change necessary to recognize one’s own grandmother, or to make a decision, or to get a new idea on how to solve a problem.
The slow and the fast adaptive mechanisms share one thing: They cannot be successful without receiving feedback and thus iterating through several stages of trial and error; for example, testing several possibilities of who this person in distance could be.
Practopoiesis states that the slow and fast adaptive mechanisms are collectively responsible for creation of intelligence and are organized into a hierarchy. 
  • First, evolution creates genes at a painstakingly slow tempo. Then genes slowly create the mechanisms of fast adaptations
  • Next, adaptation mechanisms change the properties of our nerve cells within seconds
  • And finally, the resulting adjusted networks of nerve cells route sensory signals to muscles with the speed of lightning. 
  • At the end behavior is created.
Probably the most groundbreaking aspect of practopoietic theory is that our intelligent minds are not primarily located in the connectivity matrix of our neural networks, as it has been widely held, but instead in the elaborate knowledge of the fast adaptive mechanisms. The more knowledge our genes store into our quick abilities to adapt nerve cells, the more capability we have to adjust in novel situations, solve problems, and generally, act intelligently.
Therefore, our intelligence seems to come from the hierarchy of adaptive mechanisms, from the very slow evolution that enables the genome to adapt over a lifetime, to the quick pace of neural adaptation expressing knowledge acquired through its lifetime. Only when these adaptations have been performed successfully can our networks of neurons perform tasks with wonderful accuracy.
Our capability to survive and create originates, then, 
  • from the adaptive mechanisms that operate at different levels and 
  • the vast amounts of knowledge accumulated by each of the levels.
 The combined result of all of them together is what makes us intelligent.
May 16, 2016
Danko Nikolić
About the Author:
Danko Nikolić is a brain and mind scientist, running an electrophysiology lab at the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, and is the creator of the concept of ideasthesia. More about practopoiesis can be read here

IBM, Local Motors debut Olli, the first Watson-powered self-driving vehicle

By Hugo Angel,

Olli hits the road in the Washington, D.C. area and later this year in Miami-Dade County and Las Vegas.
Local Motors CEO and co-founder John B. Rogers, Jr. with “Olli” & IBM, June 15, 2016.Rich Riggins/Feature Photo Service for IBM

IBM, along with the Arizona-based manufacturer Local Motors, debuted the first-ever driverless vehicle to use the Watson cognitive computing platform. Dubbed “Olli,” the electric vehicle was unveiled at Local Motors’ new facility in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C.

Olli, which can carry up to 12 passengers, taps into four Watson APIs (

  • Speech to Text, 
  • Natural Language Classifier, 
  • Entity Extraction and 
  • Text to Speech

) to interact with its riders. It can answer questions like “Can I bring my children on board?” and respond to basic operational commands like, “Take me to the closest Mexican restaurant.” Olli can also give vehicle diagnostics, answering questions like, “Why are you stopping?

Olli learns from data produced by more than 30 sensors embedded throughout the vehicle, which will added and adjusted to meet passenger needs and local preferences.
While Olli is the first self-driving vehicle to use IBM Watson Internet of Things (IoT), this isn’t Watson’s first foray into the automotive industry. IBM launched its IoT for Automotive unit in September of last year, and in March, IBM and Honda announced a deal for Watson technology and analytics to be used in the automaker’s Formula One (F1) cars and pits.
IBM demonstrated its commitment to IoT in March of last year, when it announced it was spending $3B over four years to establish a separate IoT business unit, whch later became the Watson IoT business unit.
IBM says that starting Thursday, Olli will be used on public roads locally in Washington, D.C. and will be used in Miami-Dade County and Las Vegas later this year. Miami-Dade County is exploring a pilot program that would deploy several autonomous vehicles to shuttle people around Miami.
ORIGINAL: ZDnet
By Stephanie Condon for Between the Lines
June 16, 2016

The Quest to Make Code Work Like Biology Just Took A Big Step

By Hugo Angel,

THE QUEST TO MAKE CODE WORK LIKE BIOLOGY JUST TOOK A BIG STEP

|Chef CTO Adam Jacob.CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
IN THE EARLY 1970s, at Silicon Valley’s Xerox PARC, Alan Kay envisioned computer software as something akin to a biological system, a vast collection of small cells that could communicate via simple messages. Each cell would perform its own discrete task. But in communicating with the rest, it would form a more complex whole. “This is an almost foolproof way of operating,” Kay once told me. Computer programmers could build something large by focusing on something small. That’s a simpler task, and in the end, the thing you build is stronger and more efficient. 
The result was a programming language called SmallTalk. Kay called it an object-oriented language—the “objects” were the cells—and it spawned so many of the languages that programmers use today, from Objective-C and Swiftwhich run all the apps on your Apple iPhone, to JavaGoogle’s language of choice on Android phones. Kay’s vision of code as biology is now the norm. It’s how the world’s programmers think about building software. 

In the ’70s, Alan Kay was a researcher at Xerox PARC, where he helped develop the notion of personal computing, the laptop, the now ubiquitous overlapping-window interface, and object-oriented programming.
COMPUTER HISTORY MUSEUM
But Kay’s big idea extends well beyond individual languages like Swift and Java. This is also how Google, Twitter, and other Internet giants now think about building and running their massive online services. The Google search engine isn’t software that runs on a single machine. Serving millions upon millions of people around the globe, it’s software that runs on thousands of machines spread across multiple computer data centers. Google runs this entire service like a biological system, as a vast collection of self-contained pieces that work in concert. It can readily spread those cells of code across all those machines, and when machines break—as they inevitably do—it can move code to new machines and keep the whole alive. 
Now, Adam Jacob wants to bring this notion to every other business on earth. Jacob is a bearded former comic-book-store clerk who, in the grand tradition of Alan Kay, views technology like a philosopher. He’s also the chief technology officer and co-founder of Chef, a Seattle company that has long helped businesses automate the operation of their online services through a techno-philosophy known as “DevOps.” Today, he and his company unveiled a new creation they call Habitat. Habitat is a way of packaging entire applications into something akin to Alan Kay’s biological cells, squeezing in not only the application code but everything needed to run, oversee, and update that code—all its “dependencies,” in programmer-speak. Then you can deploy hundreds or even thousands of these cells across a network of machines, and they will operate as a whole, with Habitat handling all the necessary communication between each cell. “With Habitat,” Jacob says, “all of the automation travels with the application itself.” 
That’s something that will at least capture the imagination of coders. And if it works, it will serve the rest of us too. If businesses push their services towards the biological ideal, then we, the people who use those services, will end up with technology that just works better—that coders can improve more easily and more quickly than before
Reduce, Reuse, Repackage 
Habitat is part of a much larger effort to remake any online business in the image of Google. Alex Polvi, CEO and founder of a startup called CoreOS, calls this movement GIFEE—or Google Infrastructure For Everyone Else—and it includes tools built by CoreOS as well as such companies as Docker and Mesosphere, not to mention Google itself. The goal: to create tools that more efficiently juggle software across the vast computer networks that drive the modern digital world. 
But Jacob seeks to shift this idea’s center of gravity. He wants to make it as easy as possible for businesses to run their existing applications in this enormously distributed manner. He wants businesses embrace this ideal even if they’re not willing to rebuild these applications or the computer platforms they run on. He aims to provide a way of wrapping any code—new or old—in an interface that can run on practically any machine. Rather than rebuilding your operation in the image of Google, Jacob says, you can simply repackage it. 
If what I want is an easier application to manage, why do I need to change the infrastructure for that application?” he says. It’s yet another extension of Alan Kay’s biological metaphor—as he himself will tell you. When I describe Habitat to Kay—now revered as one of the founding fathers of the PC, alongside so many other PARC researchers—he says it does what SmallTalk did so long go
Chef CTO Adam Jacob.CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
The Unknown Programmer 
Kay traces the origins of SmallTalk to his time in the Air Force. In 1961, he was stationed at Randolph Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas, and he worked as a programmer, building software for a vacuum-tube computer called the Burroughs 220. In those days, computers didn’t have operating systems. No Apple iOS. No Windows. No Unix. And data didn’t come packaged in standard file formats. No .doc. No .xls. No .txt. But the Air Force needed a way of sending files between bases so that different machines could read them. Sometime before Kay arrived, another Air Force programmer—whose name is lost to history—cooked up a good way. 
This unnamed programmer—“almost certainly an enlisted man,” Kay says, “because officers didn’t program back then”—would put data on a magnetic-tape reel along with all the procedures needed to read that data. Then, he tacked on a simple interface—a few “pointers,” in programmer-speak—that allowed the machine to interact with those procedures. To read the data, all the machine needed to understand were the pointers—not a whole new way of doing things. In this way, someone like Kay could read the tape from any machine on any Air Force base. 
Kay’s programming objects worked in a similar way. Each did its own thing, but could communicate with the outside world through a simple interface. That meant coders could readily plug an old object into a new program, or reuse it several times across the same program. Today, this notion is fundamental to software design. And now, Habitat wants to recreate this dynamic on a higher level: not within an application, but in a way that allows an application to run across as a vast computer network. 
Because Habitat wraps an application in a package that includes everything needed to run and oversee the application—while fronting this package with a simple interface—you can potentially run that application on any machine. Or, indeed, you can spread tens, hundreds, or even thousands of packages across a vast network of machines. Software called the Habitat Supervisor sits on each machine, running each package and ensuring it can communicate with the rest. Written in a new programming language called Rust which is suited to modern online systems, Chef designed this Supervisor specifically to juggle code on an enormous scale. 
Kay’s vision of code as biology is now the norm. It’s how the world’s programmers think about the software they build. 
But the important stuff lies inside those packages. Each package includes everything you need to orchestrate the application, as modern coders say, across myriad machines. Once you deploy your packages across a network, Jacob says, they can essentially orchestrate themselves. Instead of overseeing the application from one central nerve center, you can distribute the task—the ultimate aim of Kay’s biological system. That’s simpler and less likely to fail, at least in theory. 
What’s more, each package includes everything you need to modify the application—to, say, update the code or apply new security rules. This is what Jacob means when he says that all the automation travels with the application. “Having the management go with the package,” he says, “means I can manage in the same way, no matter where I choose to run it.” That’s vital in the modern world. Online code is constantly changing, and this system is designed for change.

‘Grownup Containers’ 
The idea at the heart of Habitat is similar to concepts that drive Mesosphere, Google’s Kubernetes, and Docker’s Swarm. All of these increasingly popular tools run software inside Linux “containers”—walled-off spaces within the Linux operating system that provide ways to orchestrate discrete pieces of code across myriad machines. Google uses containers in running its own online empire, and the rest of Silicon Valley is following suit. 
But Chef is taking a different tack. Rather than centering Habitat around Linux containers, they’ve built a new kind of package designed to run in other ways too. You can run Habitat packages atop Mesosphere or Kubernetes. You can also run them atop virtual machines, such as those offered by Amazon or Google on their cloud services. Or you can just run them on your own servers. “We can take all the existing software in the world, which wasn’t built with any of this new stuff in mind, and make it behave,” Jacob says. 
Jon Cowie, senior operations engineer at the online marketplace Etsy, is among the few outsiders who have kicked the tires on Habibat. He calls it “grownup containers.” Building an application around containers can be a complicated business, he explains. Habitat, he says, is simpler. You wrap your code, old or new, in a new interface and run it where you want to run it. “They are giving you a flexible toolkit,” he says. 
That said, container systems like Mesosphere and Kubernetes can still be a very important thing. These tools include “schedulers” that spread code across myriad machines in a hyper-efficient way, finding machines that have available resources and actually launching the code. Habitat doesn’t do that. It handles everything after the code is in place. 
Jacob sees Habitat as a tool that runs in tandem with a Mesophere or a Kubernetes—or atop other kinds of systems. He sees it as a single tool that can run any application on anything. But you may have to tweak Habitat so it will run on your infrastructure of choice. In packaging your app, Habitat must use a format that can speak to each type of system you want it to run on (the inputs and outputs for a virtual machine are different, say, from the inputs and outputs for Kubernetes), and at the moment, it only offers certain formats. If it doesn’t handle your format of choice, you’ll have to write a little extra code of your own. 
Jacob says writing this code is “trivial.” And for seasoned developers, it may be. Habitat’s overarching mission is to bring the biological imperative to as many businesses as possible. But of course, the mission isn’t everything. The importance of Habitat will really come down to how well it works.

Promise Theory 
Whatever the case, the idea behind Habitat is enormously powerful. The biological ideal has driven the evolution of computing systems for decades—and will continue to drive their evolution. Jacob and Chef are taking a concept that computer coders are intimately familiar with, and they’re applying it to something new. 
They’re trying to take away more of the complexity—and do this in a way that matches the cultural affiliation of developers,” says Mark Burgess, a computer scientist, physicist, and philosopher whose ideas helped spawn Chef and other DevOps projects. 
Burgess compares this phenomenon to what he calls Promise Theory, where humans and autonomous agents work together to solve problems by striving to fulfill certain intentions, or promises. He sees computer automation not just as a cooperation of code, but of people and code. That’s what Jacob is striving for. You share your intentions with Habitat, and its autonomous agents work to realize them—a flesh-and-blood biological system combining with its idealized counterpart in code. 
ORIGINAL: Wired
AUTHOR: CADE METZ.CADE METZ BUSINESS 
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06.14.16.06.14.16 

Former NASA chief unveils $100 million neural chip maker KnuEdge

By Hugo Angel,

Daniel Goldin
It’s not all that easy to call KnuEdge a startup. Created a decade ago by Daniel Goldin, the former head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, KnuEdge is only now coming out of stealth mode. It has already raised $100 million in funding to build a “neural chip” that Goldin says will make data centers more efficient in a hyperscale age.
Goldin, who founded the San Diego, California-based company with the former chief technology officer of NASA, said he believes the company’s brain-like chip will be far more cost and power efficient than current chips based on the computer design popularized by computer architect John von Neumann. In von Neumann machines, memory and processor are separated and linked via a data pathway known as a bus. Over the years, von Neumann machines have gotten faster by sending more and more data at higher speeds across the bus as processor and memory interact. But the speed of a computer is often limited by the capacity of that bus, leading to what some computer scientists to call the “von Neumann bottleneck.” IBM has seen the same problem, and it has a research team working on brain-like data center chips. Both efforts are part of an attempt to deal with the explosion of data driven by artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Goldin’s company is doing something similar to IBM, but only on the surface. Its approach is much different, and it has been secretly funded by unknown angel investors. And Goldin said in an interview with VentureBeat that the company has already generated $20 million in revenue and is actively engaged in hyperscale computing companies and Fortune 500 companies in the aerospace, banking, health care, hospitality, and insurance industries. The mission is a fundamental transformation of the computing world, Goldin said.
It all started over a mission to Mars,” Goldin said.

Above: KnuEdge’s first chip has 256 cores.Image Credit: KnuEdge
Back in the year 2000, Goldin saw that the time delay for controlling a space vehicle would be too long, so the vehicle would have to operate itself. He calculated that a mission to Mars would take software that would push technology to the limit, with more than tens of millions of lines of code.
Above: Daniel Goldin, CEO of KnuEdge.
Image Credit: KnuEdge
I thought, Former NASA chief unveils $100 million neural chip maker KnuEdge

It’s not all that easy to call KnuEdge a startup. Created a decade ago by Daniel Goldin, the former head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, KnuEdge is only now coming out of stealth mode. It has already raised $100 million in funding to build a “neural chip” that Goldin says will make data centers more efficient in a hyperscale age.
Goldin, who founded the San Diego, California-based company with the former chief technology officer of NASA, said he believes the company’s brain-like chip will be far more cost and power efficient than current chips based on the computer design popularized by computer architect John von Neumann. In von Neumann machines, memory and processor are separated and linked via a data pathway known as a bus. Over the years, von Neumann machines have gotten faster by sending more and more data at higher speeds across the bus as processor and memory interact. But the speed of a computer is often limited by the capacity of that bus, leading to what some computer scientists to call the “von Neumann bottleneck.” IBM has seen the same problem, and it has a research team working on brain-like data center chips. Both efforts are part of an attempt to deal with the explosion of data driven by artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Goldin’s company is doing something similar to IBM, but only on the surface. Its approach is much different, and it has been secretly funded by unknown angel investors. And Goldin said in an interview with VentureBeat that the company has already generated $20 million in revenue and is actively engaged in hyperscale computing companies and Fortune 500 companies in the aerospace, banking, health care, hospitality, and insurance industries. The mission is a fundamental transformation of the computing world, Goldin said.
It all started over a mission to Mars,” Goldin said.

Above: KnuEdge’s first chip has 256 cores.Image Credit: KnuEdge
Back in the year 2000, Goldin saw that the time delay for controlling a space vehicle would be too long, so the vehicle would have to operate itself. He calculated that a mission to Mars would take software that would push technology to the limit, with more than tens of millions of lines of code.
Above: Daniel Goldin, CEO of KnuEdge.
Image Credit: KnuEdge
I thought, holy smokes,” he said. “It’s going to be too expensive. It’s not propulsion. It’s not environmental control. It’s not power. This software business is a very big problem, and that nation couldn’t afford it.
So Goldin looked further into the brains of the robotics, and that’s when he started thinking about the computing it would take.
Asked if it was easier to run NASA or a startup, Goldin let out a guffaw.
I love them both, but they’re both very different,” Goldin said. “At NASA, I spent a lot of time on non-technical issues. I had a project every quarter, and I didn’t want to become dull technically. I tried to always take on a technical job doing architecture, working with a design team, and always doing something leading edge. I grew up at a time when you graduated from a university and went to work for someone else. If I ever come back to this earth, I would graduate and become an entrepreneur. This is so wonderful.
Back in 1992, Goldin was planning on starting a wireless company as an entrepreneur. But then he got the call to “go serve the country,” and he did that work for a decade. He started KnuEdge (previously called Intellisis) in 2005, and he got very patient capital.
When I went out to find investors, I knew I couldn’t use the conventional Silicon Valley approach (impatient capital),” he said. “It is a fabulous approach that has generated incredible wealth. But I wanted to undertake revolutionary technology development. To build the future tools for next-generation machine learning, improving the natural interface between humans and machines. So I got patient capital that wanted to see lightning strike. Between all of us, we have a board of directors that can contact almost anyone in the world. They’re fabulous business people and technologists. We knew we had a ten-year run-up.
But he’s not saying who those people are yet.
KnuEdge’s chips are part of a larger platform. KnuEdge is also unveiling KnuVerse, a military-grade voice recognition and authentication technology that unlocks the potential of voice interfaces to power next-generation computing, Goldin said.
While the voice technology market has exploded over the past five years due to the introductions of Siri, Cortana, Google Home, Echo, and ViV, the aspirations of most commercial voice technology teams are still on hold because of security and noise issues. KnuVerse solutions are based on patented authentication techniques using the human voice — even in extremely noisy environments — as one of the most secure forms of biometrics. Secure voice recognition has applications in industries such as banking, entertainment, and hospitality.
KnuEdge says it is now possible to authenticate to computers, web and mobile apps, and Internet of Things devices (or everyday objects that are smart and connected) with only a few words spoken into a microphone — in any language, no matter how loud the background environment or how many other people are talking nearby. In addition to KnuVerse, KnuEdge offers Knurld.io for application developers, a software development kit, and a cloud-based voice recognition and authentication service that can be integrated into an app typically within two hours.
And KnuEdge is announcing KnuPath with LambdaFabric computing. KnuEdge’s first chip, built with an older manufacturing technology, has 256 cores, or neuron-like brain cells, on a single chip. Each core is a tiny digital signal processor. The LambdaFabric makes it possible to instantly connect those cores to each other — a trick that helps overcome one of the major problems of multicore chips, Goldin said. The LambdaFabric is designed to connect up to 512,000 devices, enabling the system to be used in the most demanding computing environments. From rack to rack, the fabric has a latency (or interaction delay) of only 400 nanoseconds. And the whole system is designed to use a low amount of power.
All of the company’s designs are built on biological principles about how the brain gets a lot of computing work done with a small amount of power. The chip is based on what Goldin calls “sparse matrix heterogeneous machine learning algorithms.” And it will run C++ software, something that is already very popular. Programmers can program each one of the cores with a different algorithm to run simultaneously, for the “ultimate in heterogeneity.” It’s multiple input, multiple data, and “that gives us some of our power,” Goldin said.

Above: KnuEdge’s KnuPath chip.
Image Credit: KnuEdge
KnuEdge is emerging out of stealth mode to aim its new Voice and Machine Learning technologies at key challenges in IoT, cloud based machine learning and pattern recognition,” said Paul Teich, principal analyst at Tirias Research, in a statement. “Dan Goldin used his experience in transforming technology to charter KnuEdge with a bold idea, with the patience of longer development timelines and away from typical startup hype and practices. The result is a new and cutting-edge path for neural computing acceleration. There is also a refreshing surprise element to KnuEdge announcing a relevant new architecture that is ready to ship… not just a concept or early prototype.”
Today, Goldin said the company is ready to show off its designs. The first chip was ready last December, and KnuEdge is sharing it with potential customers. That chip was built with a 32-nanometer manufacturing process, and even though that’s an older technology, it is a powerful chip, Goldin said. Even at 32 nanometers, the chip has something like a two-times to six-times performance advantage over similar chips, KnuEdge said.
The human brain has a couple of hundred billion neurons, and each neuron is connected to at least 10,000 to 100,000 neurons,” Goldin said. “And the brain is the most energy efficient and powerful computer in the world. That is the metaphor we are using.”
KnuEdge has a new version of its chip under design. And the company has already generated revenue from sales of the prototype systems. Each board has about four chips.
As for the competition from IBM, Goldin said, “I believe we made the right decision and are going in the right direction. IBM’s approach is very different from what we have. We are not aiming at anyone. We are aiming at the future.
In his NASA days, Goldin had a lot of successes. There, he redesigned and delivered the International Space Station, tripled the number of space flights, and put a record number of people into space, all while reducing the agency’s planned budget by 25 percent. He also spent 25 years at TRW, where he led the development of satellite television services.
KnuEdge has 100 employees, but Goldin said the company outsources almost everything. Goldin said he is planning to raised a round of funding late this year or early next year. The company collaborated with the University of California at San Diego and UCSD’s California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology.
With computers that can handle natural language systems, many people in the world who can’t read or write will be able to fend for themselves more easily, Goldin said.
I want to be able to take machine learning and help people communicate and make a living,” he said. “This is just the beginning. This is the Wild West. We are talking to very large companies about this, and they are getting very excited.
A sample application is a home that has much greater self-awareness. If there’s something wrong in the house, the KnuEdge system could analyze it and figure out if it needs to alert the homeowner.
Goldin said it was hard to keep the company secret.
I’ve been biting my lip for ten years,” he said.
As for whether KnuEdge’s technology could be used to send people to Mars, Goldin said. “This is available to whoever is going to Mars. I tried twice. I would love it if they use it to get there.
ORIGINAL: Venture Beat

holy smokes

,” he said. “It’s going to be too expensive. It’s not propulsion. It’s not environmental control. It’s not power. This software business is a very big problem, and that nation couldn’t afford it.

So Goldin looked further into the brains of the robotics, and that’s when he started thinking about the computing it would take.
Asked if it was easier to run NASA or a startup, Goldin let out a guffaw.
I love them both, but they’re both very different,” Goldin said. “At NASA, I spent a lot of time on non-technical issues. I had a project every quarter, and I didn’t want to become dull technically. I tried to always take on a technical job doing architecture, working with a design team, and always doing something leading edge. I grew up at a time when you graduated from a university and went to work for someone else. If I ever come back to this earth, I would graduate and become an entrepreneur. This is so wonderful.
Back in 1992, Goldin was planning on starting a wireless company as an entrepreneur. But then he got the call to “go serve the country,” and he did that work for a decade. He started KnuEdge (previously called Intellisis) in 2005, and he got very patient capital.
When I went out to find investors, I knew I couldn’t use the conventional Silicon Valley approach (impatient capital),” he said. “It is a fabulous approach that has generated incredible wealth. But I wanted to undertake revolutionary technology development. To build the future tools for next-generation machine learning, improving the natural interface between humans and machines. So I got patient capital that wanted to see lightning strike. Between all of us, we have a board of directors that can contact almost anyone in the world. They’re fabulous business people and technologists. We knew we had a ten-year run-up.
But he’s not saying who those people are yet.
KnuEdge’s chips are part of a larger platform. KnuEdge is also unveiling KnuVerse, a military-grade voice recognition and authentication technology that unlocks the potential of voice interfaces to power next-generation computing, Goldin said.
While the voice technology market has exploded over the past five years due to the introductions of Siri, Cortana, Google Home, Echo, and ViV, the aspirations of most commercial voice technology teams are still on hold because of security and noise issues. KnuVerse solutions are based on patented authentication techniques using the human voice — even in extremely noisy environments — as one of the most secure forms of biometrics. Secure voice recognition has applications in industries such as banking, entertainment, and hospitality.
KnuEdge says it is now possible to authenticate to computers, web and mobile apps, and Internet of Things devices (or everyday objects that are smart and connected) with only a few words spoken into a microphone — in any language, no matter how loud the background environment or how many other people are talking nearby. In addition to KnuVerse, KnuEdge offers Knurld.io for application developers, a software development kit, and a cloud-based voice recognition and authentication service that can be integrated into an app typically within two hours.
And KnuEdge is announcing KnuPath with LambdaFabric computing. KnuEdge’s first chip, built with an older manufacturing technology, has 256 cores, or neuron-like brain cells, on a single chip. Each core is a tiny digital signal processor. The LambdaFabric makes it possible to instantly connect those cores to each other — a trick that helps overcome one of the major problems of multicore chips, Goldin said. The LambdaFabric is designed to connect up to 512,000 devices, enabling the system to be used in the most demanding computing environments. From rack to rack, the fabric has a latency (or interaction delay) of only 400 nanoseconds. And the whole system is designed to use a low amount of power.
All of the company’s designs are built on biological principles about how the brain gets a lot of computing work done with a small amount of power. The chip is based on what Goldin calls “sparse matrix heterogeneous machine learning algorithms.” And it will run C++ software, something that is already very popular. Programmers can program each one of the cores with a different algorithm to run simultaneously, for the “ultimate in heterogeneity.” It’s multiple input, multiple data, and “that gives us some of our power,” Goldin said.

Above: KnuEdge’s KnuPath chip.
Image Credit: KnuEdge
KnuEdge is emerging out of stealth mode to aim its new Voice and Machine Learning technologies at key challenges in IoT, cloud based machine learning and pattern recognition,” said Paul Teich, principal analyst at Tirias Research, in a statement. “Dan Goldin used his experience in transforming technology to charter KnuEdge with a bold idea, with the patience of longer development timelines and away from typical startup hype and practices. The result is a new and cutting-edge path for neural computing acceleration. There is also a refreshing surprise element to KnuEdge announcing a relevant new architecture that is ready to ship… not just a concept or early prototype.”
Today, Goldin said the company is ready to show off its designs. The first chip was ready last December, and KnuEdge is sharing it with potential customers. That chip was built with a 32-nanometer manufacturing process, and even though that’s an older technology, it is a powerful chip, Goldin said. Even at 32 nanometers, the chip has something like a two-times to six-times performance advantage over similar chips, KnuEdge said.
The human brain has a couple of hundred billion neurons, and each neuron is connected to at least 10,000 to 100,000 neurons,” Goldin said. “And the brain is the most energy efficient and powerful computer in the world. That is the metaphor we are using.”
KnuEdge has a new version of its chip under design. And the company has already generated revenue from sales of the prototype systems. Each board has about four chips.
As for the competition from IBM, Goldin said, “I believe we made the right decision and are going in the right direction. IBM’s approach is very different from what we have. We are not aiming at anyone. We are aiming at the future.
In his NASA days, Goldin had a lot of successes. There, he redesigned and delivered the International Space Station, tripled the number of space flights, and put a record number of people into space, all while reducing the agency’s planned budget by 25 percent. He also spent 25 years at TRW, where he led the development of satellite television services.
KnuEdge has 100 employees, but Goldin said the company outsources almost everything. Goldin said he is planning to raised a round of funding late this year or early next year. The company collaborated with the University of California at San Diego and UCSD’s California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology.
With computers that can handle natural language systems, many people in the world who can’t read or write will be able to fend for themselves more easily, Goldin said.
I want to be able to take machine learning and help people communicate and make a living,” he said. “This is just the beginning. This is the Wild West. We are talking to very large companies about this, and they are getting very excited.
A sample application is a home that has much greater self-awareness. If there’s something wrong in the house, the KnuEdge system could analyze it and figure out if it needs to alert the homeowner.
Goldin said it was hard to keep the company secret.
I’ve been biting my lip for ten years,” he said.
As for whether KnuEdge’s technology could be used to send people to Mars, Goldin said. “This is available to whoever is going to Mars. I tried twice. I would love it if they use it to get there.
ORIGINAL: Venture Beat

See The Difference One Year Makes In Artificial Intelligence Research

By Hugo Angel,

AN IMPROVED WAY OF LEARNING ABOUT NEURAL NETWORKS

Google/ Geometric IntelligenceThe difference between Google’s generated images of 2015, and the images generated in 2016.

Last June, Google wrote that it was teaching its artificial intelligence algorithms to generate images of objects, or “dream.” The A.I. tried to generate pictures of things it had seen before, like dumbbells. But it ran into a few problems. It was able to successfully make objects shaped like dumbbells, but each had disembodied arms sticking out from the handles, because arms and dumbbells were closely associated. Over the course of a year, this process has become incredibly refined, meaning these algorithms are learning much more complete ideas about the world.

New research shows that even when trained on a standardized set of images,, A.I. can generate increasingly realistic images of objects that it’s seen before. Through this, the researchers were also able to sequence the images and make low-resolution videos of actions like skydiving and playing violin. The paper, from the University of Wyoming, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, and Geometric Intelligence, focuses on deep generator networks, which not only create these images but are able to show how each neuron in the network affects the entire system’s understanding.
Looking at generated images from a model is important because it gives researchers a better idea about how their models process data. It’s a way to take a look under the hood of algorithms that usually act independent of human intervention as they work. By seeing what computation each neuron in the network does, they can tweak the structure to be faster or more accurate.
With real images, it is unclear which of their features a neuron has learned,” the team wrote. “For example, if a neuron is activated by a picture of a lawn mower on grass, it is unclear if it ‘cares about’ the grass, but if an image…contains grass, we can be more confident the neuron has learned to pay attention to that context.”
They’re researching their research—and this gives a valuable tool to continue doing so.

Screenshot
Take a look at some other examples of images the A.I. was able to produce.
ORIGINAL: Popular Science
May 31, 2016

Inside OpenAI, Elon Musk’s Wild Plan to Set Artificial Intelligence Free

By Hugo Angel,

 MICHAL CZERWONKA/REDUX
THE FRIDAY AFTERNOON news dump, a grand tradition observed by politicians and capitalists alike, is usually supposed to hide bad news. So it was a little weird that Elon Musk, founder of electric car maker Tesla, and Sam Altman, president of famed tech incubator Y Combinator, unveiled their new artificial intelligence company at the tail end of a weeklong AI conference in Montreal this past December.
But there was a reason they revealed OpenAI at that late hour. It wasn’t that no one was looking. It was that everyone was looking. When some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies caught wind of the project, they began offering tremendous amounts of money to OpenAI’s freshly assembled cadre of artificial intelligence researchers, intent on keeping these big thinkers for themselves. The last-minute offers—some made at the conference itself—were large enough to force Musk and Altman to delay the announcement of the new startup. “The amount of money was borderline crazy,” says Wojciech Zaremba, a researcher who was joining OpenAI after internships at both Google and Facebook and was among those who received big offers at the eleventh hour.
How many dollars is “borderline crazy”? 
Two years ago, as the market for the latest machine learning technology really started to heat up, Microsoft Research vice president Peter Lee said that the cost of a top AI researcher had eclipsed the cost of a top quarterback prospect in the National Football League—and he meant under regular circumstances, not when two of the most famous entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were trying to poach your top talent. Zaremba says that as OpenAI was coming together, he was offered two or three times his market value.
OpenAI didn’t match those offers. But it offered something else: the chance to explore research aimed solely at the future instead of products and quarterly earnings, and to eventually share most—if not all—of this research with anyone who wants it. That’s right: Musk, Altman, and company aim to give away what may become the 21st century’s most transformative technology—and give it away for free.
Ilya Sutskever.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Zaremba says those borderline crazy offers actually turned him off—despite his enormous respect for companies like Google and Facebook. He felt like the money was at least as much of an effort to prevent the creation of OpenAI as a play to win his services, and it pushed him even further towards the startup’s magnanimous mission. “I realized,” Zaremba says, “that OpenAI was the best place to be.
That’s the irony at the heart of this story: even as the world’s biggest tech companies try to hold onto their researchers with the same fierceness that NFL teams try to hold onto their star quarterbacks, the researchers themselves just want to share. In the rarefied world of AI research, the brightest minds aren’t driven by—or at least not only by—the next product cycle or profit margin. They want to make AI better, and making AI better doesn’t happen when you keep your latest findings to yourself.
OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go.
This morning, OpenAI will release its first batch of AI software, a toolkit for building artificially intelligent systems by way of a technology called reinforcement learning—one of the key technologies that, among other things, drove the creation of AlphaGo, the Google AI that shocked the world by mastering the ancient game of Go. With this toolkit, you can build systems that simulate a new breed of robot, play Atari games, and, yes, master the game of Go.
But game-playing is just the beginning. OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go. In both how the company came together and what it plans to do, you can see the next great wave of innovation forming. We’re a long way from knowing whether OpenAI itself becomes the main agent for that change. But the forces that drove the creation of this rather unusual startup show that the new breed of AI will not only remake technology, but remake the way we build technology.
AI Everywhere
Silicon Valley is not exactly averse to hyperbole. It’s always wise to meet bold-sounding claims with skepticism. But in the field of AI, the change is real. Inside places like Google and Facebook, a technology called deep learning is already helping Internet services identify faces in photos, recognize commands spoken into smartphones, and respond to Internet search queries. And this same technology can drive so many other tasks of the future. It can help machines understand natural language—the natural way that we humans talk and write. It can create a new breed of robot, giving automatons the power to not only perform tasks but learn them on the fly. And some believe it can eventually give machines something close to common sense—the ability to truly think like a human.
 MICHAL CZERWONKA/REDUX
THE FRIDAY AFTERNOON news dump, a grand tradition observed by politicians and capitalists alike, is usually supposed to hide bad news. So it was a little weird that Elon Musk, founder of electric car maker Tesla, and Sam Altman, president of famed tech incubator Y Combinator, unveiled their new artificial intelligence company at the tail end of a weeklong AI conference in Montreal this past December.
But there was a reason they revealed OpenAI at that late hour. It wasn’t that no one was looking. It was that everyone was looking. When some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies caught wind of the project, they began offering tremendous amounts of money to OpenAI’s freshly assembled cadre of artificial intelligence researchers, intent on keeping these big thinkers for themselves. The last-minute offers—some made at the conference itself—were large enough to force Musk and Altman to delay the announcement of the new startup. “The amount of money was borderline crazy,” says Wojciech Zaremba, a researcher who was joining OpenAI after internships at both Google and Facebook and was among those who received big offers at the eleventh hour.
How many dollars is “borderline crazy”? 
Two years ago, as the market for the latest machine learning technology really started to heat up, Microsoft Research vice president Peter Lee said that the cost of a top AI researcher had eclipsed the cost of a top quarterback prospect in the National Football League—and he meant under regular circumstances, not when two of the most famous entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were trying to poach your top talent. Zaremba says that as OpenAI was coming together, he was offered two or three times his market value.
OpenAI didn’t match those offers. But it offered something else: the chance to explore research aimed solely at the future instead of products and quarterly earnings, and to eventually share most—if not all—of this research with anyone who wants it. That’s right: Musk, Altman, and company aim to give away what may become the 21st century’s most transformative technology—and give it away for free.
Ilya Sutskever.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Zaremba says those borderline crazy offers actually turned him off—despite his enormous respect for companies like Google and Facebook. He felt like the money was at least as much of an effort to prevent the creation of OpenAI as a play to win his services, and it pushed him even further towards the startup’s magnanimous mission. “I realized,” Zaremba says, “that OpenAI was the best place to be.
That’s the irony at the heart of this story: even as the world’s biggest tech companies try to hold onto their researchers with the same fierceness that NFL teams try to hold onto their star quarterbacks, the researchers themselves just want to share. In the rarefied world of AI research, the brightest minds aren’t driven by—or at least not only by—the next product cycle or profit margin. They want to make AI better, and making AI better doesn’t happen when you keep your latest findings to yourself.
OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go.
This morning, OpenAI will release its first batch of AI software, a toolkit for building artificially intelligent systems by way of a technology called reinforcement learning—one of the key technologies that, among other things, drove the creation of AlphaGo, the Google AI that shocked the world by mastering the ancient game of Go. With this toolkit, you can build systems that simulate a new breed of robot, play Atari games, and, yes, master the game of Go.
But game-playing is just the beginning. OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go. In both how the company came together and what it plans to do, you can see the next great wave of innovation forming. We’re a long way from knowing whether OpenAI itself becomes the main agent for that change. But the forces that drove the creation of this rather unusual startup show that the new breed of AI will not only remake technology, but remake the way we build technology.
AI Everywhere
Silicon Valley is not exactly averse to hyperbole. It’s always wise to meet bold-sounding claims with skepticism. But in the field of AI, the change is real. Inside places like Google and Facebook, a technology called deep learning is already helping Internet services identify faces in photos, recognize commands spoken into smartphones, and respond to Internet search queries. And this same technology can drive so many other tasks of the future. It can help machines understand natural language—the natural way that we humans talk and write. It can create a new breed of robot, giving automatons the power to not only perform tasks but learn them on the fly. And some believe it can eventually give machines something close to common sense—the ability to truly think like a human.
But along with such promise comes deep anxiety. Musk and Altman worry that if people can build AI that can do great things, then they can build AI that can do awful things, too. They’re not alone in their fear of robot overlords, but perhaps counterintuitively, Musk and Altman also think that the best way to battle malicious AI is not to restrict access to artificial intelligence but expand it. That’s part of what has attracted a team of young, hyper-intelligent idealists to their new project.
OpenAI began one evening last summer in a private room at Silicon Valley’s Rosewood Hotel—an upscale, urban, ranch-style hotel that sits, literally, at the center of the venture capital world along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. Elon Musk was having dinner with Ilya Sutskever, who was then working on the Google Brain, the company’s sweeping effort to build deep neural networks—artificially intelligent systems that can learn to perform tasks by analyzing massive amounts of digital data, including everything from recognizing photos to writing email messages to, well, carrying on a conversation. Sutskever was one of the top thinkers on the project. But even bigger ideas were in play.
Sam Altman, whose Y Combinator helped bootstrap companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Coinbase, had brokered the meeting, bringing together several AI researchers and a young but experienced company builder named Greg Brockman, previously the chief technology officer at high-profile Silicon Valley digital payments startup called Stripe, another Y Combinator company. It was an eclectic group. But they all shared a goal: to create a new kind of AI lab, one that would operate outside the control not only of Google, but of anyone else. “The best thing that I could imagine doing,” Brockman says, “was moving humanity closer to building real AI in a safe way.
Musk is one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
Musk was there because he’s an old friend of Altman’s—and because AI is crucial to the future of his various businesses and, well, the future as a whole. Tesla needs AI for its inevitable self-driving cars. SpaceX, Musk’s other company, will need it to put people in space and keep them alive once they’re there. But Musk is also one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
The trouble was: so many of the people most qualified to solve all those problems were already working for Google (and Facebook and Microsoft and Baidu and Twitter). And no one at the dinner was quite sure that these thinkers could be lured to a new startup, even if Musk and Altman were behind it. But one key player was at least open to the idea of jumping ship. “I felt there were risks involved,” Sutskever says. “But I also felt it would be a very interesting thing to try.

Breaking the Cycle
Emboldened by the conversation with Musk, Altman, and others at the Rosewood, Brockman soon resolved to build the lab they all envisioned. Taking on the project full-time, he approached Yoshua Bengio, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal and one of founding fathers of the deep learning movement. The field’s other two pioneers—Geoff Hinton and Yann LeCun—are now at Google and Facebook, respectively, but Bengio is committed to life in the world of academia, largely outside the aims of industry. He drew up a list of the best researchers in the field, and over the next several weeks, Brockman reached out to as many on the list as he could, along with several others.
Greg Brockman,
one of OpenAI’s founding fathers and
its chief technology officer.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Many of these researchers liked the idea, but they were also wary of making the leap. In an effort to break the cycle, Brockman picked the ten researchers he wanted the most and invited them to spend a Saturday getting wined, dined, and cajoled at a winery in Napa Valley. For Brockman, even the drive into Napa served as a catalyst for the project. “An underrated way to bring people together are these times where there is no way to speed up getting to where you’re going,” he says. “You have to get there, and you have to talk.” And once they reached the wine country, that vibe remained. “It was one of those days where you could tell the chemistry was there,” Brockman says. Or as Sutskever puts it: “the wine was secondary to the talk.”
RELATED STORIES



By the end of the day, Brockman asked all ten researchers to join the lab, and he gave them three weeks to think about it. By the deadline, nine of them were in. And they stayed in, despite those big offers from the giants of Silicon Valley. “They did make it very compelling for me to stay, so it wasn’t an easy decision,” Sutskever says of Google, his former employer. “But in the end, I decided to go with OpenAI, partly of because of the very strong group of people and, to a very large extent, because of its mission.”
The deep learning movement began with academics. It’s only recently that companies like Google and Facebook and Microsoft have pushed into the field, as advances in raw computing power have made deep neural networks a reality, not just a theoretical possibility. People like Hinton and LeCun left academia for Google and Facebook because of the enormous resources inside these companies. But they remain intent on collaborating with other thinkers. Indeed, as LeCun explains, deep learning research requires this free flow of ideas. “When you do research in secret,” he says, “you fall behind.”
As a result, big companies now share a lot of their AI research. That’s a real change, especially for Google, which has long kept the tech at the heart of its online empiresecret. Recently, Google open sourced the software engine that drives its neural networks. But it still retains the inside track in the race to the future. Brockman, Altman, and Musk aim to push the notion of openness further still, saying they don’t want one or two large corporations controlling the future of artificial intelligence.
The Limits of Openness
All of which sounds great. But for all of OpenAI’s idealism, the researchers may find themselves facing some of the same compromises they had to make at their old jobs. Openness has its limits. And the long-term vision for AI isn’t the only interest in play. OpenAI is not a charity. Musk’s companies that could benefit greatly the startup’s work, and so could many of the companies backed by Altman’s Y Combinator. “There are certainly some competing objectives,” LeCun says. “It’s a non-profit, but then there is a very close link with Y Combinator. And people are paid as if they are working in the industry.”
According to Brockman, the lab doesn’t pay the same astronomical salaries that AI researchers are now getting at places like Google and Facebook. But he says the lab does want to “pay them well,” and it’s offering to compensate researchers with stock options, first in Y Combinator and perhaps later in SpaceX (which, unlike Tesla, is still a private company).

Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies.
Nonetheless, Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies. OpenAI is a research outfit, he says, not a consulting firm. But when pressed, he acknowledges that OpenAI’s idealistic vision has its limits. The company may not open source everything it produces, though it will aim to share most of its research eventually, either through research papers or Internet services. “Doing all your research in the open is not necessarily the best way to go. You want to nurture an idea, see where it goes, and then publish it,” Brockman says. “We will produce lot of open source code. But we will also have a lot of stuff that we are not quite ready to release.
Both Sutskever and Brockman also add that OpenAI could go so far as to patent some of its work. “We won’t patent anything in the near term,” Brockman says. “But we’re open to changing tactics in the long term, if we find it’s the best thing for the world.” For instance, he says, OpenAI could engage in pre-emptive patenting, a tactic that seeks to prevent others from securing patents.
But to some, patents suggest a profit motive—or at least a weaker commitment to open source than OpenAI’s founders have espoused. “That’s what the patent system is about,” says Oren Etzioni, head of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. “This makes me wonder where they’re really going.

The Super-Intelligence Problem
When Musk and Altman unveiled OpenAI, they also painted the project as a way to neutralize the threat of a malicious artificial super-intelligence. Of course, that super-intelligence could arise out of the tech OpenAI creates, but they insist that any threat would be mitigated because the technology would be usable by everyone. “We think its far more likely that many, many AIs will work to stop the occasional bad actors,” Altman says.
But not everyone in the field buys this. Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher who, like Musk, has warned against the dangers of AI, points out that if you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe. “If you have a button that could do bad things to the world,” Bostrom says, “you don’t want to give it to everyone.” If, on the other hand, OpenAI decides to hold back research to keep it from the bad guys, Bostrom wonders how it’s different from a Google or a Facebook.
If you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe.
He does say that the not-for-profit status of OpenAI could change things—though not necessarily. The real power of the project, he says, is that it can indeed provide a check for the likes of Google and Facebook. “It can reduce the probability that super-intelligence would be monopolized,” he says. “It can remove one possible reason why some entity or group would have radically better AI than everyone else.
But as the philosopher explains in a new paper, the primary effect of an outfit like OpenAI—an outfit intent on freely sharing its work—is that it accelerates the progress of artificial intelligence, at least in the short term. And it may speed progress in the long term as well, provided that it, for altruistic reasons, “opts for a higher level of openness than would be commercially optimal.
It might still be plausible that a philanthropically motivated R&D funder would speed progress more by pursuing open science,” he says.


Like Xerox PARC
In early January, Brockman’s nine AI researchers met up at his apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. The project was so new that they didn’t even have white boards. (Can you imagine?) They bought a few that day and got down to work.
Brockman says OpenAI will begin by exploring reinforcement learning, a way for machines to learn tasks by repeating them over and over again and tracking which methods produce the best results. But the other primary goal is what’s called unsupervised learning—creating machines that can truly learn on their own, without a human hand to guide them. Today, deep learning is driven by carefully labeled data. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize cat photos, you must feed it a certain number of examples—and these examples must be labeled as cat photos. The learning is supervised by human labelers. But like many others researchers, OpenAI aims to create neural nets that can learn without carefully labeled data.
If you have really good unsupervised learning, machines would be able to learn from all this knowledge on the Internet—just like humans learn by looking around—or reading books,” Brockman says.
He envisions OpenAI as the modern incarnation of Xerox PARC, the tech research lab that thrived in the 1970s. Just as PARC’s largely open and unfettered research gave rise to everything from the graphical user interface to the laser printer to object-oriented programing, Brockman and crew seek to delve even deeper into what we once considered science fiction. PARC was owned by, yes, Xerox, but it fed so many other companies, most notably Apple, because people like Steve Jobs were privy to its research. At OpenAI, Brockman wants to make everyone privy to its research.
This month, hoping to push this dynamic as far as it will go, Brockman and company snagged several other notable researchers, including Ian Goodfellow, another former senior researcher on the Google Brain team. “The thing that was really special about PARC is that they got a bunch of smart people together and let them go where they want,” Brockman says. “You want a shared vision, without central control.”
Giving up control is the essence of the open source ideal. If enough people apply themselves to a collective goal, the end result will trounce anything you concoct in secret. But if AI becomes as powerful as promised, the equation changes. We’ll have to ensure that new AIs adhere to the same egalitarian ideals that led to their creation in the first place. Musk, Altman, and Brockman are placing their faith in the wisdom of the crowd. But if they’re right, one day that crowd won’t be entirely human.
ORIGINAL: Wired

CADE METZ BUSINESS 
04.27.16 

: justify;”>

But along with such promise comes deep anxiety. Musk and AlInside OpenAI, Elon Musk’s Wild Plan to Set Artificial Intelligence Free
AI, Elon Musk, Open Source, OpenAI, Reinforcement Learning, Software Kit,

 MICHAL CZERWONKA/REDUX
THE FRIDAY AFTERNOON news dump, a grand tradition observed by politicians and capitalists alike, is usually supposed to hide bad news. So it was a little weird that Elon Musk, founder of electric car maker Tesla, and Sam Altman, president of famed tech incubator Y Combinator, unveiled their new artificial intelligence company at the tail end of a weeklong AI conference in Montreal this past December.
But there was a reason they revealed OpenAI at that late hour. It wasn’t that no one was looking. It was that everyone was looking. When some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies caught wind of the project, they began offering tremendous amounts of money to OpenAI’s freshly assembled cadre of artificial intelligence researchers, intent on keeping these big thinkers for themselves. The last-minute offers—some made at the conference itself—were large enough to force Musk and Altman to delay the announcement of the new startup. “The amount of money was borderline crazy,” says Wojciech Zaremba, a researcher who was joining OpenAI after internships at both Google and Facebook and was among those who received big offers at the eleventh hour.
How many dollars is “borderline crazy”? 
Two years ago, as the market for the latest machine learning technology really started to heat up, Microsoft Research vice president Peter Lee said that the cost of a top AI researcher had eclipsed the cost of a top quarterback prospect in the National Football League—and he meant under regular circumstances, not when two of the most famous entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were trying to poach your top talent. Zaremba says that as OpenAI was coming together, he was offered two or three times his market value.
OpenAI didn’t match those offers. But it offered something else: the chance to explore research aimed solely at the future instead of products and quarterly earnings, and to eventually share most—if not all—of this research with anyone who wants it. That’s right: Musk, Altman, and company aim to give away what may become the 21st century’s most transformative technology—and give it away for free.
Ilya Sutskever.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Zaremba says those borderline crazy offers actually turned him off—despite his enormous respect for companies like Google and Facebook. He felt like the money was at least as much of an effort to prevent the creation of OpenAI as a play to win his services, and it pushed him even further towards the startup’s magnanimous mission. “I realized,” Zaremba says, “that OpenAI was the best place to be.
That’s the irony at the heart of this story: even as the world’s biggest tech companies try to hold onto their researchers with the same fierceness that NFL teams try to hold onto their star quarterbacks, the researchers themselves just want to share. In the rarefied world of AI research, the brightest minds aren’t driven by—or at least not only by—the next product cycle or profit margin. They want to make AI better, and making AI better doesn’t happen when you keep your latest findings to yourself.
OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go.
This morning, OpenAI will release its first batch of AI software, a toolkit for building artificially intelligent systems by way of a technology called reinforcement learning—one of the key technologies that, among other things, drove the creation of AlphaGo, the Google AI that shocked the world by mastering the ancient game of Go. With this toolkit, you can build systems that simulate a new breed of robot, play Atari games, and, yes, master the game of Go.
But game-playing is just the beginning. OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go. In both how the company came together and what it plans to do, you can see the next great wave of innovation forming. We’re a long way from knowing whether OpenAI itself becomes the main agent for that change. But the forces that drove the creation of this rather unusual startup show that the new breed of AI will not only remake technology, but remake the way we build technology.
AI Everywhere
Silicon Valley is not exactly averse to hyperbole. It’s always wise to meet bold-sounding claims with skepticism. But in the field of AI, the change is real. Inside places like Google and Facebook, a technology called deep learning is already helping Internet services identify faces in photos, recognize commands spoken into smartphones, and respond to Internet search queries. And this same technology can drive so many other tasks of the future. It can help machines understand natural language—the natural way that we humans talk and write. It can create a new breed of robot, giving automatons the power to not only perform tasks but learn them on the fly. And some believe it can eventually give machines something close to common sense—the ability to truly think like a human.
But along with such promise comes deep anxiety. Musk and Altman worry that if people can build AI that can do great things, then they can build AI that can do awful things, too. They’re not alone in their fear of robot overlords, but perhaps counterintuitively, Musk and Altman also think that the best way to battle malicious AI is not to restrict access to artificial intelligence but expand it. That’s part of what has attracted a team of young, hyper-intelligent idealists to their new project.
OpenAI began one evening last summer in a private room at Silicon Valley’s Rosewood Hotel—an upscale, urban, ranch-style hotel that sits, literally, at the center of the venture capital world along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. Elon Musk was having dinner with Ilya Sutskever, who was then working on the Google Brain, the company’s sweeping effort to build deep neural networks—artificially intelligent systems that can learn to perform tasks by analyzing massive amounts of digital data, including everything from recognizing photos to writing email messages to, well, carrying on a conversation. Sutskever was one of the top thinkers on the project. But even bigger ideas were in play.
Sam Altman, whose Y Combinator helped bootstrap companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Coinbase, had brokered the meeting, bringing together several AI researchers and a young but experienced company builder named Greg Brockman, previously the chief technology officer at high-profile Silicon Valley digital payments startup called Stripe, another Y Combinator company. It was an eclectic group. But they all shared a goal: to create a new kind of AI lab, one that would operate outside the control not only of Google, but of anyone else. “The best thing that I could imagine doing,” Brockman says, “was moving humanity closer to building real AI in a safe way.
Musk is one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
Musk was there because he’s an old friend of Altman’s—and because AI is crucial to the future of his various businesses and, well, the future as a whole. Tesla needs AI for its inevitable self-driving cars. SpaceX, Musk’s other company, will need it to put people in space and keep them alive once they’re there. But Musk is also one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
The trouble was: so many of the people most qualified to solve all those problems were already working for Google (and Facebook and Microsoft and Baidu and Twitter). And no one at the dinner was quite sure that these thinkers could be lured to a new startup, even if Musk and Altman were behind it. But one key player was at least open to the idea of jumping ship. “I felt there were risks involved,” Sutskever says. “But I also felt it would be a very interesting thing to try.

Breaking the Cycle
Emboldened by the conversation with Musk, Altman, and others at the Rosewood, Brockman soon resolved to build the lab they all envisioned. Taking on the project full-time, he approached Yoshua Bengio, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal and one of founding fathers of the deep learning movement. The field’s other two pioneers—Geoff Hinton and Yann LeCun—are now at Google and Facebook, respectively, but Bengio is committed to life in the world of academia, largely outside the aims of industry. He drew up a list of the best researchers in the field, and over the next several weeks, Brockman reached out to as many on the list as he could, along with several others.
Greg Brockman,
one of OpenAI’s founding fathers and
its chief technology officer.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Many of these researchers liked the idea, but they were also wary of making the leap. In an effort to break the cycle, Brockman picked the ten researchers he wanted the most and invited them to spend a Saturday getting wined, dined, and cajoled at a winery in Napa Valley. For Brockman, even the drive into Napa served as a catalyst for the project. “An underrated way to bring people together are these times where there is no way to speed up getting to where you’re going,” he says. “You have to get there, and you have to talk.” And once they reached the wine country, that vibe remained. “It was one of those days where you could tell the chemistry was there,” Brockman says. Or as Sutskever puts it: “the wine was secondary to the talk.”
RELATED STORIES



By the end of the day, Brockman asked all ten researchers to join the lab, and he gave them three weeks to think about it. By the deadline, nine of them were in. And they stayed in, despite those big offers from the giants of Silicon Valley. “They did make it very compelling for me to stay, so it wasn’t an easy decision,” Sutskever says of Google, his former employer. “But in the end, I decided to go with OpenAI, partly of because of the very strong group of people and, to a very large extent, because of its mission.”
The deep learning movement began with academics. It’s only recently that companies like Google and Facebook and Microsoft have pushed into the field, as advances in raw computing power have made deep neural networks a reality, not just a theoretical possibility. People like Hinton and LeCun left academia for Google and Facebook because of the enormous resources inside these companies. But they remain intent on collaborating with other thinkers. Indeed, as LeCun explains, deep learning research requires this free flow of ideas. “When you do research in secret,” he says, “you fall behind.”
As a result, big companies now share a lot of their AI research. That’s a real change, especially for Google, which has long kept the tech at the heart of its online empiresecret. Recently, Google open sourced the software engine that drives its neural networks. But it still retains the inside track in the race to the future. Brockman, Altman, and Musk aim to push the notion of openness further still, saying they don’t want one or two large corporations controlling the future of artificial intelligence.
The Limits of Openness
All of which sounds great. But for all of OpenAI’s idealism, the researchers may find themselves facing some of the same compromises they had to make at their old jobs. Openness has its limits. And the long-term vision for AI isn’t the only interest in play. OpenAI is not a charity. Musk’s companies that could benefit greatly the startup’s work, and so could many of the companies backed by Altman’s Y Combinator. “There are certainly some competing objectives,” LeCun says. “It’s a non-profit, but then there is a very close link with Y Combinator. And people are paid as if they are working in the industry.”
According to Brockman, the lab doesn’t pay the same astronomical salaries that AI researchers are now getting at places like Google and Facebook. But he says the lab does want to “pay them well,” and it’s offering to compensate researchers with stock options, first in Y Combinator and perhaps later in SpaceX (which, unlike Tesla, is still a private company).

Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies.
Nonetheless, Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies. OpenAI is a research outfit, he says, not a consulting firm. But when pressed, he acknowledges that OpenAI’s idealistic vision has its limits. The company may not open source everything it produces, though it will aim to share most of its research eventually, either through research papers or Internet services. “Doing all your research in the open is not necessarily the best way to go. You want to nurture an idea, see where it goes, and then publish it,” Brockman says. “We will produce lot of open source code. But we will also have a lot of stuff that we are not quite ready to release.
Both Sutskever and Brockman also add that OpenAI could go so far as to patent some of its work. “We won’t patent anything in the near term,” Brockman says. “But we’re open to changing tactics in the long term, if we find it’s the best thing for the world.” For instance, he says, OpenAI could engage in pre-emptive patenting, a tactic that seeks to prevent others from securing patents.
But to some, patents suggest a profit motive—or at least a weaker commitment to open source than OpenAI’s founders have espoused. “That’s what the patent system is about,” says Oren Etzioni, head of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. “This makes me wonder where they’re really going.

The Super-Intelligence Problem
When Musk and Altman unveiled OpenAI, they also painted the project as a way to neutralize the threat of a malicious artificial super-intelligence. Of course, that super-intelligence could arise out of the tech OpenAI creates, but they insist that any threat would be mitigated because the technology would be usable by everyone. “We think its far more likely that many, many AIs will work to stop the occasional bad actors,” Altman says.
But not everyone in the field buys this. Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher who, like Musk, has warned against the dangers of AI, points out that if you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe. “If you have a button that could do bad things to the world,” Bostrom says, “you don’t want to give it to everyone.” If, on the other hand, OpenAI decides to hold back research to keep it from the bad guys, Bostrom wonders how it’s different from a Google or a Facebook.
If you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe.
He does say that the not-for-profit status of OpenAI could change things—though not necessarily. The real power of the project, he says, is that it can indeed provide a check for the likes of Google and Facebook. “It can reduce the probability that super-intelligence would be monopolized,” he says. “It can remove one possible reason why some entity or group would have radically better AI than everyone else.
But as the philosopher explains in a new paper, the primary effect of an outfit like OpenAI—an outfit intent on freely sharing its work—is that it accelerates the progress of artificial intelligence, at least in the short term. And it may speed progress in the long term as well, provided that it, for altruistic reasons, “opts for a higher level of openness than would be commercially optimal.
It might still be plausible that a philanthropically motivated R&D funder would speed progress more by pursuing open science,” he says.


Like Xerox PARC
In early January, Brockman’s nine AI researchers met up at his apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. The project was so new that they didn’t even have white boards. (Can you imagine?) They bought a few that day and got down to work.
Brockman says OpenAI will begin by exploring reinforcement learning, a way for machines to learn tasks by repeating them over and over again and tracking which methods produce the best results. But the other primary goal is what’s called unsupervised learning—creating machines that can truly learn on their own, without a human hand to guide them. Today, deep learning is driven by carefully labeled data. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize cat photos, you must feed it a certain number of examples—and these examples must be labeled as cat photos. The learning is supervised by human labelers. But like many others researchers, OpenAI aims to create neural nets that can learn without carefully labeled data.
If you have really good unsupervised learning, machines would be able to learn from all this knowledge on the Internet—just like humans learn by looking around—or reading books,” Brockman says.
He envisions OpenAI as the modern incarnation of Xerox PARC, the tech research lab that thrived in the 1970s. Just as PARC’s largely open and unfettered research gave rise to everything from the graphical user interface to the laser printer to object-oriented programing, Brockman and crew seek to delve even deeper into what we once considered science fiction. PARC was owned by, yes, Xerox, but it fed so many other companies, most notably Apple, because people like Steve Jobs were privy to its research. At OpenAI, Brockman wants to make everyone privy to its research.
This month, hoping to push this dynamic as far as it will go, Brockman and company snagged several other notable researchers, including Ian Goodfellow, another former senior researcher on the Google Brain team. “The thing that was really special about PARC is that they got a bunch of smart people together and let them go where they want,” Brockman says. “You want a shared vision, without central control.”
Giving up control is the essence of the open source ideal. If enough people apply themselves to a collective goal, the end result will trounce anything you concoct in secret. But if AI becomes as powerful as promised, the equation changes. We’ll have to ensure that new AIs adhere to the same egalitarian ideals that led to their creation in the first place. Musk, Altman, and Brockman are placing their faith in the wisdom of the crowd. But if they’re right, one day that crowd won’t be entirely human.
ORIGINAL: Wired

CADE METZ BUSINESS 
04.27.16 

Inside OpenAI, Elon Musk’s Wild Plan to Set Artificial Intelligence Free
AI, Elon Musk, Open Source, OpenAI, Reinforcement Learning, Software Kit,

 MICHAL CZERWONKA/REDUX
THE FRIDAY AFTERNOON news dump, a grand tradition observed by politicians and capitalists alike, is usually supposed to hide bad news. So it was a little weird that Elon Musk, founder of electric car maker Tesla, and Sam Altman, president of famed tech incubator Y Combinator, unveiled their new artificial intelligence company at the tail end of a weeklong AI conference in Montreal this past December.
But there was a reason they revealed OpenAI at that late hour. It wasn’t that no one was looking. It was that everyone was looking. When some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies caught wind of the project, they began offering tremendous amounts of money to OpenAI’s freshly assembled cadre of artificial intelligence researchers, intent on keeping these big thinkers for themselves. The last-minute offers—some made at the conference itself—were large enough to force Musk and Altman to delay the announcement of the new startup. “The amount of money was borderline crazy,” says Wojciech Zaremba, a researcher who was joining OpenAI after internships at both Google and Facebook and was among those who received big offers at the eleventh hour.
How many dollars is “borderline crazy”? 
Two years ago, as the market for the latest machine learning technology really started to heat up, Microsoft Research vice president Peter Lee said that the cost of a top AI researcher had eclipsed the cost of a top quarterback prospect in the National Football League—and he meant under regular circumstances, not when two of the most famous entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were trying to poach your top talent. Zaremba says that as OpenAI was coming together, he was offered two or three times his market value.
OpenAI didn’t match those offers. But it offered something else: the chance to explore research aimed solely at the future instead of products and quarterly earnings, and to eventually share most—if not all—of this research with anyone who wants it. That’s right: Musk, Altman, and company aim to give away what may become the 21st century’s most transformative technology—and give it away for free.
Ilya Sutskever.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Zaremba says those borderline crazy offers actually turned him off—despite his enormous respect for companies like Google and Facebook. He felt like the money was at least as much of an effort to prevent the creation of OpenAI as a play to win his services, and it pushed him even further towards the startup’s magnanimous mission. “I realized,” Zaremba says, “that OpenAI was the best place to be.
That’s the irony at the heart of this story: even as the world’s biggest tech companies try to hold onto their researchers with the same fierceness that NFL teams try to hold onto their star quarterbacks, the researchers themselves just want to share. In the rarefied world of AI research, the brightest minds aren’t driven by—or at least not only by—the next product cycle or profit margin. They want to make AI better, and making AI better doesn’t happen when you keep your latest findings to yourself.
OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go.
This morning, OpenAI will release its first batch of AI software, a toolkit for building artificially intelligent systems by way of a technology called reinforcement learning—one of the key technologies that, among other things, drove the creation of AlphaGo, the Google AI that shocked the world by mastering the ancient game of Go. With this toolkit, you can build systems that simulate a new breed of robot, play Atari games, and, yes, master the game of Go.
But game-playing is just the beginning. OpenAI is a billion-dollar effort to push AI as far as it will go. In both how the company came together and what it plans to do, you can see the next great wave of innovation forming. We’re a long way from knowing whether OpenAI itself becomes the main agent for that change. But the forces that drove the creation of this rather unusual startup show that the new breed of AI will not only remake technology, but remake the way we build technology.
AI Everywhere
Silicon Valley is not exactly averse to hyperbole. It’s always wise to meet bold-sounding claims with skepticism. But in the field of AI, the change is real. Inside places like Google and Facebook, a technology called deep learning is already helping Internet services identify faces in photos, recognize commands spoken into smartphones, and respond to Internet search queries. And this same technology can drive so many other tasks of the future. It can help machines understand natural language—the natural way that we humans talk and write. It can create a new breed of robot, giving automatons the power to not only perform tasks but learn them on the fly. And some believe it can eventually give machines something close to common sense—the ability to truly think like a human.
But along with such promise comes deep anxiety. Musk and Altman worry that if people can build AI that can do great things, then they can build AI that can do awful things, too. They’re not alone in their fear of robot overlords, but perhaps counterintuitively, Musk and Altman also think that the best way to battle malicious AI is not to restrict access to artificial intelligence but expand it. That’s part of what has attracted a team of young, hyper-intelligent idealists to their new project.
OpenAI began one evening last summer in a private room at Silicon Valley’s Rosewood Hotel—an upscale, urban, ranch-style hotel that sits, literally, at the center of the venture capital world along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. Elon Musk was having dinner with Ilya Sutskever, who was then working on the Google Brain, the company’s sweeping effort to build deep neural networks—artificially intelligent systems that can learn to perform tasks by analyzing massive amounts of digital data, including everything from recognizing photos to writing email messages to, well, carrying on a conversation. Sutskever was one of the top thinkers on the project. But even bigger ideas were in play.
Sam Altman, whose Y Combinator helped bootstrap companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Coinbase, had brokered the meeting, bringing together several AI researchers and a young but experienced company builder named Greg Brockman, previously the chief technology officer at high-profile Silicon Valley digital payments startup called Stripe, another Y Combinator company. It was an eclectic group. But they all shared a goal: to create a new kind of AI lab, one that would operate outside the control not only of Google, but of anyone else. “The best thing that I could imagine doing,” Brockman says, “was moving humanity closer to building real AI in a safe way.
Musk is one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
Musk was there because he’s an old friend of Altman’s—and because AI is crucial to the future of his various businesses and, well, the future as a whole. Tesla needs AI for its inevitable self-driving cars. SpaceX, Musk’s other company, will need it to put people in space and keep them alive once they’re there. But Musk is also one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
The trouble was: so many of the people most qualified to solve all those problems were already working for Google (and Facebook and Microsoft and Baidu and Twitter). And no one at the dinner was quite sure that these thinkers could be lured to a new startup, even if Musk and Altman were behind it. But one key player was at least open to the idea of jumping ship. “I felt there were risks involved,” Sutskever says. “But I also felt it would be a very interesting thing to try.

Breaking the Cycle
Emboldened by the conversation with Musk, Altman, and others at the Rosewood, Brockman soon resolved to build the lab they all envisioned. Taking on the project full-time, he approached Yoshua Bengio, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal and one of founding fathers of the deep learning movement. The field’s other two pioneers—Geoff Hinton and Yann LeCun—are now at Google and Facebook, respectively, but Bengio is committed to life in the world of academia, largely outside the aims of industry. He drew up a list of the best researchers in the field, and over the next several weeks, Brockman reached out to as many on the list as he could, along with several others.
Greg Brockman,
one of OpenAI’s founding fathers and
its chief technology officer.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Many of these researchers liked the idea, but they were also wary of making the leap. In an effort to break the cycle, Brockman picked the ten researchers he wanted the most and invited them to spend a Saturday getting wined, dined, and cajoled at a winery in Napa Valley. For Brockman, even the drive into Napa served as a catalyst for the project. “An underrated way to bring people together are these times where there is no way to speed up getting to where you’re going,” he says. “You have to get there, and you have to talk.” And once they reached the wine country, that vibe remained. “It was one of those days where you could tell the chemistry was there,” Brockman says. Or as Sutskever puts it: “the wine was secondary to the talk.”
RELATED STORIES



By the end of the day, Brockman asked all ten researchers to join the lab, and he gave them three weeks to think about it. By the deadline, nine of them were in. And they stayed in, despite those big offers from the giants of Silicon Valley. “They did make it very compelling for me to stay, so it wasn’t an easy decision,” Sutskever says of Google, his former employer. “But in the end, I decided to go with OpenAI, partly of because of the very strong group of people and, to a very large extent, because of its mission.”
The deep learning movement began with academics. It’s only recently that companies like Google and Facebook and Microsoft have pushed into the field, as advances in raw computing power have made deep neural networks a reality, not just a theoretical possibility. People like Hinton and LeCun left academia for Google and Facebook because of the enormous resources inside these companies. But they remain intent on collaborating with other thinkers. Indeed, as LeCun explains, deep learning research requires this free flow of ideas. “When you do research in secret,” he says, “you fall behind.”
As a result, big companies now share a lot of their AI research. That’s a real change, especially for Google, which has long kept the tech at the heart of its online empiresecret. Recently, Google open sourced the software engine that drives its neural networks. But it still retains the inside track in the race to the future. Brockman, Altman, and Musk aim to push the notion of openness further still, saying they don’t want one or two large corporations controlling the future of artificial intelligence.
The Limits of Openness
All of which sounds great. But for all of OpenAI’s idealism, the researchers may find themselves facing some of the same compromises they had to make at their old jobs. Openness has its limits. And the long-term vision for AI isn’t the only interest in play. OpenAI is not a charity. Musk’s companies that could benefit greatly the startup’s work, and so could many of the companies backed by Altman’s Y Combinator. “There are certainly some competing objectives,” LeCun says. “It’s a non-profit, but then there is a very close link with Y Combinator. And people are paid as if they are working in the industry.”
According to Brockman, the lab doesn’t pay the same astronomical salaries that AI researchers are now getting at places like Google and Facebook. But he says the lab does want to “pay them well,” and it’s offering to compensate researchers with stock options, first in Y Combinator and perhaps later in SpaceX (which, unlike Tesla, is still a private company).

Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies.
Nonetheless, Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies. OpenAI is a research outfit, he says, not a consulting firm. But when pressed, he acknowledges that OpenAI’s idealistic vision has its limits. The company may not open source everything it produces, though it will aim to share most of its research eventually, either through research papers or Internet services. “Doing all your research in the open is not necessarily the best way to go. You want to nurture an idea, see where it goes, and then publish it,” Brockman says. “We will produce lot of open source code. But we will also have a lot of stuff that we are not quite ready to release.
Both Sutskever and Brockman also add that OpenAI could go so far as to patent some of its work. “We won’t patent anything in the near term,” Brockman says. “But we’re open to changing tactics in the long term, if we find it’s the best thing for the world.” For instance, he says, OpenAI could engage in pre-emptive patenting, a tactic that seeks to prevent others from securing patents.
But to some, patents suggest a profit motive—or at least a weaker commitment to open source than OpenAI’s founders have espoused. “That’s what the patent system is about,” says Oren Etzioni, head of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. “This makes me wonder where they’re really going.

The Super-Intelligence Problem
When Musk and Altman unveiled OpenAI, they also painted the project as a way to neutralize the threat of a malicious artificial super-intelligence. Of course, that super-intelligence could arise out of the tech OpenAI creates, but they insist that any threat would be mitigated because the technology would be usable by everyone. “We think its far more likely that many, many AIs will work to stop the occasional bad actors,” Altman says.
But not everyone in the field buys this. Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher who, like Musk, has warned against the dangers of AI, points out that if you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe. “If you have a button that could do bad things to the world,” Bostrom says, “you don’t want to give it to everyone.” If, on the other hand, OpenAI decides to hold back research to keep it from the bad guys, Bostrom wonders how it’s different from a Google or a Facebook.
If you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe.
He does say that the not-for-profit status of OpenAI could change things—though not necessarily. The real power of the project, he says, is that it can indeed provide a check for the likes of Google and Facebook. “It can reduce the probability that super-intelligence would be monopolized,” he says. “It can remove one possible reason why some entity or group would have radically better AI than everyone else.
But as the philosopher explains in a new paper, the primary effect of an outfit like OpenAI—an outfit intent on freely sharing its work—is that it accelerates the progress of artificial intelligence, at least in the short term. And it may speed progress in the long term as well, provided that it, for altruistic reasons, “opts for a higher level of openness than would be commercially optimal.
It might still be plausible that a philanthropically motivated R&D funder would speed progress more by pursuing open science,” he says.


Like Xerox PARC
In early January, Brockman’s nine AI researchers met up at his apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. The project was so new that they didn’t even have white boards. (Can you imagine?) They bought a few that day and got down to work.
Brockman says OpenAI will begin by exploring reinforcement learning, a way for machines to learn tasks by repeating them over and over again and tracking which methods produce the best results. But the other primary goal is what’s called unsupervised learning—creating machines that can truly learn on their own, without a human hand to guide them. Today, deep learning is driven by carefully labeled data. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize cat photos, you must feed it a certain number of examples—and these examples must be labeled as cat photos. The learning is supervised by human labelers. But like many others researchers, OpenAI aims to create neural nets that can learn without carefully labeled data.
If you have really good unsupervised learning, machines would be able to learn from all this knowledge on the Internet—just like humans learn by looking around—or reading books,” Brockman says.
He envisions OpenAI as the modern incarnation of Xerox PARC, the tech research lab that thrived in the 1970s. Just as PARC’s largely open and unfettered research gave rise to everything from the graphical user interface to the laser printer to object-oriented programing, Brockman and crew seek to delve even deeper into what we once considered science fiction. PARC was owned by, yes, Xerox, but it fed so many other companies, most notably Apple, because people like Steve Jobs were privy to its research. At OpenAI, Brockman wants to make everyone privy to its research.
This month, hoping to push this dynamic as far as it will go, Brockman and company snagged several other notable researchers, including Ian Goodfellow, another former senior researcher on the Google Brain team. “The thing that was really special about PARC is that they got a bunch of smart people together and let them go where they want,” Brockman says. “You want a shared vision, without central control.”
Giving up control is the essence of the open source ideal. If enough people apply themselves to a collective goal, the end result will trounce anything you concoct in secret. But if AI becomes as powerful as promised, the equation changes. We’ll have to ensure that new AIs adhere to the same egalitarian ideals that led to their creation in the first place. Musk, Altman, and Brockman are placing their faith in the wisdom of the crowd. But if they’re right, one day that crowd won’t be entirely human.
ORIGINAL: Wired

CADE METZ BUSINESS 
04.27.16 

tman worry that if people can build AI that can do great things, then they can build AI that can do awful things, too. They’re not alone in their fear of robot overlords, but perhaps counterintuitively, Musk and Altman also think that the best way to battle malicious AI is not to restrict access to artificial intelligence but expand it. That’s part of what has attracted a team of young, hyper-intelligent idealists to their new project.

OpenAI began one evening last summer in a private room at Silicon Valley’s Rosewood Hotel—an upscale, urban, ranch-style hotel that sits, literally, at the center of the venture capital world along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. Elon Musk was having dinner with Ilya Sutskever, who was then working on the Google Brain, the company’s sweeping effort to build deep neural networks—artificially intelligent systems that can learn to perform tasks by analyzing massive amounts of digital data, including everything from recognizing photos to writing email messages to, well, carrying on a conversation. Sutskever was one of the top thinkers on the project. But even bigger ideas were in play.
Sam Altman, whose Y Combinator helped bootstrap companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Coinbase, had brokered the meeting, bringing together several AI researchers and a young but experienced company builder named Greg Brockman, previously the chief technology officer at high-profile Silicon Valley digital payments startup called Stripe, another Y Combinator company. It was an eclectic group. But they all shared a goal: to create a new kind of AI lab, one that would operate outside the control not only of Google, but of anyone else. “The best thing that I could imagine doing,” Brockman says, “was moving humanity closer to building real AI in a safe way.
Musk is one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
Musk was there because he’s an old friend of Altman’s—and because AI is crucial to the future of his various businesses and, well, the future as a whole. Tesla needs AI for its inevitable self-driving cars. SpaceX, Musk’s other company, will need it to put people in space and keep them alive once they’re there. But Musk is also one of the loudest voices warning that we humans could one day lose control of systems powerful enough to learn on their own.
The trouble was: so many of the people most qualified to solve all those problems were already working for Google (and Facebook and Microsoft and Baidu and Twitter). And no one at the dinner was quite sure that these thinkers could be lured to a new startup, even if Musk and Altman were behind it. But one key player was at least open to the idea of jumping ship. “I felt there were risks involved,” Sutskever says. “But I also felt it would be a very interesting thing to try.

Breaking the Cycle
Emboldened by the conversation with Musk, Altman, and others at the Rosewood, Brockman soon resolved to build the lab they all envisioned. Taking on the project full-time, he approached Yoshua Bengio, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal and one of founding fathers of the deep learning movement. The field’s other two pioneers—Geoff Hinton and Yann LeCun—are now at Google and Facebook, respectively, but Bengio is committed to life in the world of academia, largely outside the aims of industry. He drew up a list of the best researchers in the field, and over the next several weeks, Brockman reached out to as many on the list as he could, along with several others.
Greg Brockman,
one of OpenAI’s founding fathers and
its chief technology officer.
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED
Many of these researchers liked the idea, but they were also wary of making the leap. In an effort to break the cycle, Brockman picked the ten researchers he wanted the most and invited them to spend a Saturday getting wined, dined, and cajoled at a winery in Napa Valley. For Brockman, even the drive into Napa served as a catalyst for the project. “An underrated way to bring people together are these times where there is no way to speed up getting to where you’re going,” he says. “You have to get there, and you have to talk.” And once they reached the wine country, that vibe remained. “It was one of those days where you could tell the chemistry was there,” Brockman says. Or as Sutskever puts it: “the wine was secondary to the talk.”
RELATED STORIES



By the end of the day, Brockman asked all ten researchers to join the lab, and he gave them three weeks to think about it. By the deadline, nine of them were in. And they stayed in, despite those big offers from the giants of Silicon Valley. “They did make it very compelling for me to stay, so it wasn’t an easy decision,” Sutskever says of Google, his former employer. “But in the end, I decided to go with OpenAI, partly of because of the very strong group of people and, to a very large extent, because of its mission.”
The deep learning movement began with academics. It’s only recently that companies like Google and Facebook and Microsoft have pushed into the field, as advances in raw computing power have made deep neural networks a reality, not just a theoretical possibility. People like Hinton and LeCun left academia for Google and Facebook because of the enormous resources inside these companies. But they remain intent on collaborating with other thinkers. Indeed, as LeCun explains, deep learning research requires this free flow of ideas. “When you do research in secret,” he says, “you fall behind.”
As a result, big companies now share a lot of their AI research. That’s a real change, especially for Google, which has long kept the tech at the heart of its online empiresecret. Recently, Google open sourced the software engine that drives its neural networks. But it still retains the inside track in the race to the future. Brockman, Altman, and Musk aim to push the notion of openness further still, saying they don’t want one or two large corporations controlling the future of artificial intelligence.
The Limits of Openness
All of which sounds great. But for all of OpenAI’s idealism, the researchers may find themselves facing some of the same compromises they had to make at their old jobs. Openness has its limits. And the long-term vision for AI isn’t the only interest in play. OpenAI is not a charity. Musk’s companies that could benefit greatly the startup’s work, and so could many of the companies backed by Altman’s Y Combinator. “There are certainly some competing objectives,” LeCun says. “It’s a non-profit, but then there is a very close link with Y Combinator. And people are paid as if they are working in the industry.”
According to Brockman, the lab doesn’t pay the same astronomical salaries that AI researchers are now getting at places like Google and Facebook. But he says the lab does want to “pay them well,” and it’s offering to compensate researchers with stock options, first in Y Combinator and perhaps later in SpaceX (which, unlike Tesla, is still a private company).

Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies.
Nonetheless, Brockman insists that OpenAI won’t give special treatment to its sister companies. OpenAI is a research outfit, he says, not a consulting firm. But when pressed, he acknowledges that OpenAI’s idealistic vision has its limits. The company may not open source everything it produces, though it will aim to share most of its research eventually, either through research papers or Internet services. “Doing all your research in the open is not necessarily the best way to go. You want to nurture an idea, see where it goes, and then publish it,” Brockman says. “We will produce lot of open source code. But we will also have a lot of stuff that we are not quite ready to release.
Both Sutskever and Brockman also add that OpenAI could go so far as to patent some of its work. “We won’t patent anything in the near term,” Brockman says. “But we’re open to changing tactics in the long term, if we find it’s the best thing for the world.” For instance, he says, OpenAI could engage in pre-emptive patenting, a tactic that seeks to prevent others from securing patents.
But to some, patents suggest a profit motive—or at least a weaker commitment to open source than OpenAI’s founders have espoused. “That’s what the patent system is about,” says Oren Etzioni, head of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. “This makes me wonder where they’re really going.

The Super-Intelligence Problem
When Musk and Altman unveiled OpenAI, they also painted the project as a way to neutralize the threat of a malicious artificial super-intelligence. Of course, that super-intelligence could arise out of the tech OpenAI creates, but they insist that any threat would be mitigated because the technology would be usable by everyone. “We think its far more likely that many, many AIs will work to stop the occasional bad actors,” Altman says.
But not everyone in the field buys this. Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher who, like Musk, has warned against the dangers of AI, points out that if you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe. “If you have a button that could do bad things to the world,” Bostrom says, “you don’t want to give it to everyone.” If, on the other hand, OpenAI decides to hold back research to keep it from the bad guys, Bostrom wonders how it’s different from a Google or a Facebook.
If you share research without restriction, bad actors could grab it before anyone has ensured that it’s safe.
He does say that the not-for-profit status of OpenAI could change things—though not necessarily. The real power of the project, he says, is that it can indeed provide a check for the likes of Google and Facebook. “It can reduce the probability that super-intelligence would be monopolized,” he says. “It can remove one possible reason why some entity or group would have radically better AI than everyone else.
But as the philosopher explains in a new paper, the primary effect of an outfit like OpenAI—an outfit intent on freely sharing its work—is that it accelerates the progress of artificial intelligence, at least in the short term. And it may speed progress in the long term as well, provided that it, for altruistic reasons, “opts for a higher level of openness than would be commercially optimal.
It might still be plausible that a philanthropically motivated R&D funder would speed progress more by pursuing open science,” he says.


Like Xerox PARC
In early January, Brockman’s nine AI researchers met up at his apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. The project was so new that they didn’t even have white boards. (Can you imagine?) They bought a few that day and got down to work.
Brockman says OpenAI will begin by exploring reinforcement learning, a way for machines to learn tasks by repeating them over and over again and tracking which methods produce the best results. But the other primary goal is what’s called unsupervised learning—creating machines that can truly learn on their own, without a human hand to guide them. Today, deep learning is driven by carefully labeled data. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize cat photos, you must feed it a certain number of examples—and these examples must be labeled as cat photos. The learning is supervised by human labelers. But like many others researchers, OpenAI aims to create neural nets that can learn without carefully labeled data.
If you have really good unsupervised learning, machines would be able to learn from all this knowledge on the Internet—just like humans learn by looking around—or reading books,” Brockman says.
He envisions OpenAI as the modern incarnation of Xerox PARC, the tech research lab that thrived in the 1970s. Just as PARC’s largely open and unfettered research gave rise to everything from the graphical user interface to the laser printer to object-oriented programing, Brockman and crew seek to delve even deeper into what we once considered science fiction. PARC was owned by, yes, Xerox, but it fed so many other companies, most notably Apple, because people like Steve Jobs were privy to its research. At OpenAI, Brockman wants to make everyone privy to its research.
This month, hoping to push this dynamic as far as it will go, Brockman and company snagged several other notable researchers, including Ian Goodfellow, another former senior researcher on the Google Brain team. “The thing that was really special about PARC is that they got a bunch of smart people together and let them go where they want,” Brockman says. “You want a shared vision, without central control.”
Giving up control is the essence of the open source ideal. If enough people apply themselves to a collective goal, the end result will trounce anything you concoct in secret. But if AI becomes as powerful as promised, the equation changes. We’ll have to ensure that new AIs adhere to the same egalitarian ideals that led to their creation in the first place. Musk, Altman, and Brockman are placing their faith in the wisdom of the crowd. But if they’re right, one day that crowd won’t be entirely human.
ORIGINAL: Wired

CADE METZ BUSINESS 
04.27.16