Stanley: Older luminaries get stuck because deviating from success is scary
Ken Stanley · Kenneth Stanley: Set The Right Objectives · Oct 4, 2022 · at 52:16
AI researcher Ken Stanley discusses why established figures become predictable and struggle to maintain their innovative edge later in their careers.
0:00 / 0:31exact quote · 31.4s
720p mp4 · rendered on demand · StarZero watermark
“I think this is why like luminaries kind of get stuck in a rut as they get older. It's part of it. I think is that it's really, It's really scary, like, to leave that path, because that's what you're known for, that's what everybody respects you for, and you're comfortable in it, but the problem is it becomes predictable, and so you look less innovative the farther down the path you go, and the less you deviate, and so it takes a lot of energy to actually intentionally deviate, but it's, I think it's a good heuristic for if you really want to continue to be innovative.”
quote is from the automated transcript, cleaned for reading: filler sounds and stutters are removed, nothing is rephrased. names can be misheard (the analysis reads context, assessments check outside sources). how →
More from Ken Stanley
Stanley: Dismissing experts' subjective sense of 'interesting' cripples innovation
“It's actually the subjective judgments are the interesting ones because, like, the objective judgments are easy. You don't need a degree to just measure something. You know, some kid takes some test, you get a score. You can average them across everybody at th…”
Stanley: Direct pursuit of human-level AI is a naive objective
“Like, at some level, there's, like, this really grandiose conception of, like, some human-like computer, and, like, that is, I think, a naive objective right now. Like, you just don't want to know how to do that. We don't know what the stepping stones are that…”
Stanley: AI research proves objective-driven achievement is deeply flawed
“And in the course of doing that research, we just started to see undeniable evidence that that approach to achievement has some serious flaws.”
Stanley: Major breakthroughs require positioning for serendipity rather than setting objectives
“And actually like a lot of what we do that facilitates making these kinds of important discoveries is to actually set us up, set ourselves up for having effective serendipity, which is not the way that we, you know, talk about things when you talk about settin…”
Stanley: Complex problems like education cannot be solved by direct metric optimization
“We cannot make progress in certain kinds of extremely complex problems, which education is one of those. Simply by just laying out some assessment system and then trying to follow it towards this global objective, which is just incredibly complex to get to.”
Stanley: Metrics are useless for hard problems because required stepping stones are counterintuitive
“If the actual stepping stones that lead to where we want to go are counterintuitive, in other words, they're not what you would expect, then the metrics are useless, right? Because they won't detect those stepping stones because they don't look like what the m…”