My attempt to map the research *doctrines* of various groups working on Artificial General Intelligence.

Although one might see names of individuals here as well as organizations, take it just as identification of the organization behind the person and a very narrow slice of their overall research portfolio.
Here is a @swardley map that captures the relationship of doctrine with other individual and organizational processes.
We can capture a party's doctrine by either an explicitly stated agenda or an aggregation of the kind of approach that is pursued. A doctrine is an invariant property of the overall behavior of a party.
In this map one can see the conflict between different parties (compare @garymarcus with the deep learning folks).
Also you can compare groups like @DeepMind and @OpenAI which although are both working on Deep RL. Deepmind has a neuroscience flavor that is reflected in its classification as being more organic.
Because it is unnatural to capture a high dimensional concept such as doctrine in just two dimensions. The dimensions have been selected to be purposefully ambiguous so as to allow the reader some leeway in interpretation.
The vertical axis reflects a difference in inspiration for the hypothesis generated by the doctrine. One can be biologically inspired like @numenta or one can be less so, but informed by a mathematical idea (i.e. free energy).
The horizontal axis reflect the known tension between representationalists and non-representationlists. In one side are functionalists that identify specific mechanisms. On the other extreme are enactivists that try to capture the complexities of the ecosystem.
Every scientific discipline as well as each individual researcher follows a research agenda that is explicitly or implicitly driven by a doctrine. The debates we see between various groups are the manifestations of the conflicts in doctrine.
There is an argument to be made (see: @blamlab ) that the complexity of intelligence requires a pluralistic approach, yet people and organizations seek a dogmatic stance instead. This is of course unavoidable, it is the nature of the human condition.
I've captured this in a blog post that hopefully will expand the details: https://t.co/Qek1Z1WH7S

More from Carlos E. Perez

You May Also Like

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.