
Pioneers of reinforcement learning named Turing award winners
This year's Turing Award — often called the Nobel Prize of computer science — is going to Andrew Barto and Richard Sutton, the pioneers of a key approach that underlies much of today's artificial intelligence.
Why it matters: Reinforcement learning, as the technique is known, posits that computers can learn from their own experiences, using a system of rewards similar to how researchers have trained animals.
In a joint interview, Barto and Sutton said the award is extremely rewarding, especially given that for much of their career, the technology they pursued was out of vogue.
"When we started, it was extremely unfashionable to do what we were doing," Barto told Axios. "It had been dismissed, actually, by many people."
"There were periods of time when I could not get funding because I was not doing the current fashionable topic, and I wasn't going to change to what was fashionable," he said.
Sutton added that it was "particularly gratifying" to be given this award since it was Alan Turing who proposed the notion of computers learning from their own experiences in a 1950s paper, though it would take decades for there to be enough computing power to test out the notion.
Catch up quick: Sutton, now a computer science professor at Canada's University of Alberta, was Barto's student at the University of Massachusetts in the late 1970s.
Throughout the 1980s, the pair wrote a series of influential papers, culminating in their seminal 1998 textbook: "Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction," which has been cited in more than 70,000 academic papers.
The approach finally gained prominence in the last decade as DeepMind's AlphaGo began to defeat human players.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback is a key method for the training of large language models, while the approach has also proven useful in everything from programming robots to automating chip design.
What they're saying: Google's Jeff Dean said reinforcement learning has been central to the advancement of modern AI.
"The tools they developed remain a central pillar of the AI boom and have rendered major advances, attracted legions of young researchers, and driven billions of dollars in investments."
Google funds the $1 million prize given each year to the Turing Award winners.
What's next: Both Sutton and Barto believe that current fears about AI are overblown, though they acknowledge that highly intelligent systems could cause significant upheaval as society adjusts.
Sutton said he sees AGI as the chance to introduce new "minds" into the world without having them develop biologically, through evolution.
"I think it's a pivotal moment for our planet," Sutton said.
Barto echoed that cautious optimism: "I think there's a lot of opportunity for these systems to improve many aspects of our life and society, assuming sufficient caution is taken."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sam Altman thinks AI will have 'novel insights' next year
In a new essay published Tuesday called "The Gentle Singularity," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shared his latest vision for how AI will change the human experience over the next 15 years. The essay is a classic example of Altman's futurism: hyping up the promise of AGI — and arguing that his company is quite close to the feat — while simultaneously downplaying its arrival. The OpenAI CEO frequently publishes essays of this nature, cleanly laying out a future in which AGI disrupts our modern conception of work, energy, and the social contract. But often, Altman's essays contain hints about what OpenAI is working on next. At one point in the essay, Altman claimed that next year, in 2026, the world will "likely see the arrival of [AI] systems that can figure out novel insights." While this is somewhat vague, OpenAI executives have recently indicated that the company is focused on getting AI models to come up with new, interesting ideas about the world. When announcing OpenAI's o3 and o4-mini AI reasoning models in April, co-founder and President Greg Brockman said these were the first models that scientists had used to generate new, helpful ideas. Altman's blog post suggests that in the coming year, OpenAI itself may ramp up its efforts to develop AI that can generate novel insights. OpenAI certainly wouldn't be the only company focused on this effort — several of OpenAI's competitors have shifted their focus to training AI models that can help scientists come up with new hypotheses, and thus, novel discoveries about the world. In May, Google released a paper on AlphaEvolve, an AI coding agent that the company claims to have generated novel approaches to complex math problems. Another startup backed by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, FutureHouse, claims its AI agent tool has been capable of making a genuine scientific discovery. In May, Anthropic launched a program to support scientific research. If successful, these companies could automate a key part of the scientific process, and potentially break into massive industries such as drug discovery, material science, and other fields with science at their core. This wouldn't be the first time Altman has tipped his hat about OpenAI's plans in a blog. In January, Altman wrote another blog post suggesting that 2025 would be the year of agents. His company then proceeded to drop its first three AI agents: Operator, Deep Research, and Codex. But getting AI systems to generate novel insights may be harder than making them agentic. The broader scientific community remains somewhat skeptical of AI's ability to generate genuinely original insights. Earlier this year, Hugging Face's Chief Science Officer Thomas Wolf wrote an essay arguing that modern AI systems cannot ask great questions, which is key to any great scientific breakthrough. Kenneth Stanley, a former OpenAI research lead, also previously told TechCrunch that today's AI models cannot generate novel hypotheses. Stanley is now building out a team at Lila Sciences, a startup that raised $200 million to create an AI-powered laboratory specifically focused on getting AI models to come up with better hypotheses. This is a difficult problem, according to Stanley, because it involves giving AI models a sense for what is creative and interesting. Whether OpenAI truly creates an AI model that is capable of producing novel insights remains to be seen. Still, Altman's essay may feature something familiar -- a preview of where OpenAI is likely headed next. This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sam Altman thinks AI will have 'novel insights' next year
In a new essay published Tuesday called "The Gentle Singularity," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shared his latest vision for how AI will change the human experience over the next 15 years. The essay is a classic example of Altman's futurism: hyping up the promise of AGI — and arguing that his company is quite close to the feat — while simultaneously downplaying its arrival. The OpenAI CEO frequently publishes essays of this nature, cleanly laying out a future in which AGI disrupts our modern conception of work, energy, and the social contract. But often, Altman's essays contain hints about what OpenAI is working on next. At one point in the essay, Altman claimed that next year, in 2026, the world will "likely see the arrival of [AI] systems that can figure out novel insights." While this is somewhat vague, OpenAI executives have recently indicated that the company is focused on getting AI models to come up with new, interesting ideas about the world. When announcing OpenAI's o3 and o4-mini AI reasoning models in April, co-founder and President Greg Brockman said these were the first models that scientists had used to generate new, helpful ideas. Altman's blog post suggests that in the coming year, OpenAI itself may ramp up its efforts to develop AI that can generate novel insights. OpenAI certainly wouldn't be the only company focused on this effort — several of OpenAI's competitors have shifted their focus to training AI models that can help scientists come up with new hypotheses, and thus, novel discoveries about the world. In May, Google released a paper on AlphaEvolve, an AI coding agent that the company claims to have generated novel approaches to complex math problems. Another startup backed by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, FutureHouse, claims its AI agent tool has been capable of making a genuine scientific discovery. In May, Anthropic launched a program to support scientific research. If successful, these companies could automate a key part of the scientific process, and potentially break into massive industries such as drug discovery, material science, and other fields with science at their core. This wouldn't be the first time Altman has tipped his hat about OpenAI's plans in a blog. In January, Altman wrote another blog post suggesting that 2025 would be the year of agents. His company then proceeded to drop its first three AI agents: Operator, Deep Research, and Codex. But getting AI systems to generate novel insights may be harder than making them agentic. The broader scientific community remains somewhat skeptical of AI's ability to generate genuinely original insights. Earlier this year, Hugging Face's Chief Science Officer Thomas Wolf wrote an essay arguing that modern AI systems cannot ask great questions, which is key to any great scientific breakthrough. Kenneth Stanley, a former OpenAI research lead, also previously told TechCrunch that today's AI models cannot generate novel hypotheses. Stanley is now building out a team at Lila Sciences, a startup that raised $200 million to create an AI-powered laboratory specifically focused on getting AI models to come up with better hypotheses. This is a difficult problem, according to Stanley, because it involves giving AI models a sense for what is creative and interesting. Whether OpenAI truly creates an AI model that is capable of producing novel insights remains to be seen. Still, Altman's essay may feature something familiar -- a preview of where OpenAI is likely headed next. Sign in to access your portfolio


Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Could An Ingenious Solo Coder Be The Tipping Point For Turning AI Into AGI?
In today's column, I address an often-discussed AI insider chitchat that someday there is going to be an ingenious solo coder aka an individual independent AI developer who will miraculously advance conventional AI into becoming AGI (artificial general intelligence). All by themselves. This seems to be the dream of many AI developers, for good reasons, since such a person would undoubtedly be showered with immense acclaim and grandiose riches. Their name would certainly go into history books forever. The nagging question is whether that kind of feat could realistically occur. Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. Billions upon billions of dollars are being spent nowadays to try and arrive at AGI. Massive teams of AI developers are toiling at work daily. The assumption is that the more people you toss at the problem, the higher the chances of solving the problem. The problem is how to turn conventional AI into AGI. Nobody knows how to accomplish this outstretched goal. Maybe, just maybe, there is a chosen one out there that will astoundingly be akin to Neo in The Matrix and be able to make AGI become a reality. I'd bet that a lot of today's AI developers believe in their present minds that they are that person. Sitting there at work, alongside an army of other AI developers, they know in their heart of hearts that only they ultimately hold the key to attaining AGI. The riches, the fame, the personal sense of accomplishment, it's all a huge allure. Some might believe that their quest is based on benefiting humanity. They set aside any personal glory. Their motivation is that AGI will presumably help cure cancer and potentially solve many of the world's difficulties. It is such a tempting consideration that some AI developers leave an AI maker and start their own firm to pursue AGI. Those dolts and laggards that were holding them back are no longer a boat anchor. Now, they have the freedom to work 24/7 and keep their mind laser-focused on achieving AGI. No distractions, no workplace gossip, no dealing with moving up the ladder. Straight heads-down obsessive preoccupation with landing at AGI. This belief that one person alone can attain AGI is typically referred to as the lone wolf condition, a type of maverick mentality. Cultures vary as to the assumption that large-scale accomplishments can be attained via an individual versus a group effort. Some would say that it is preposterous to imagine that AGI would be arrived at by one person working alone. Not possible. Impossible. A crucial factor is whether the individual is working totally from scratch or whether they are building on top of prior work. The idea of devising AGI from scratch would imply that the person sets aside all prior AI efforts and begins with a blank sheet of paper. They depart from everything that has come before. In an ingenious fashion that no one right now can describe, this person comes up with a new way to craft AI and that will lead to AGI. Wow, that's a tall order. It seems highly unlikely. The odds are that they would need to use at least some aspects of AI that we already know and have in hand. A counterargument is that maybe the current AI path is completely wrong and won't get us to AGI. The only smart thing to do is chuck what we have now and take a fresh look at things. Maybe that might be the final bit of trickery, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Let's assume that the more probable route is that the lone individual builds on what we already have. Sure, they might make changes here or there but generally they would be leveraging existing state-of-the-art AI. The lone wolf seems to have a much better chance if it turns out that they are at the vital tipping point. In essence, AI had been advanced to the point that it was nearing AGI. The last mile, as it were, hadn't yet been figured out. The enterprising solo coder managed to bridge that final gap. Voila, they got us to AGI. Do they deserve outstanding accolades for this feat? One argument is that they stood on the backs of others and should not take undue credit as though they individually won the big prize. Their bridging might be clever, it might be the final piece in a puzzling puzzle, this though doesn't grant them the right to proclaim they invented or discovered AGI. Whoa, bellows the retort, to the victor go the spoils. If this maverick found the final magic, by gosh, they deserve to be anointed as the founder of AGI. That's the way the ball bounces. You could say the same about almost all great inventions and inventors, namely they alone did not do everything from scratch and managed to build on whatever came before their time. One notable concern is that if a lone wolf did arrive at AGI, they might be ill-prepared to keep the AGI in proper check. The logic is as follows. We already know that current AI can make mistakes and produce errors, see my discussion at the link here. A large AI maker would presumably have established all sorts of safety and security precautions, anticipating that AGI ought to not be let loose wantonly. An individual working in their pajamas in their garage is seemingly not going to be taking similar precautions. Hogwash, some say to that concern. If you believe that large AI makers will be ready for AGI, you might as well buy swamp land. AI makers talk a good game, but they aren't going to be much better at bounding AGI as would even a lone individual. Get off the back of the lone wolf and don't fault them for something that any AI maker would indubitably be faulted for. Another concern is that AGI will be a geo-political tool for nations to dominate other nations (see my analysis at the link here), and the aspect that a lone individual would have AGI in their solo hands is rather frightening. What is the coder going to do with AGI? They might decide to keep it a secret. There is a solid chance that the use of AGI could make them rich by using the AI to make investments or find abundantly clever ways to ample riches. No need to inform anyone else about your secret sauce. Keep it to yourself. The downside there is that if indeed AGI can cure cancer and solve other global issues, the person is hogging AGI and denying the rest of humanity a chance at great relief and peace. The lone wolf might dangerously hand AGI over to evildoers, either by accident or on purpose. Those evildoers then use AGI to threaten nations and try to take over the world. This individual might not have anticipated how the AGI could be utilized to wreak havoc and harm humanity. Nonetheless, they let the horse out of the barn, and we are all the worse off accordingly. Does this rugged individual that attains AGI have to be ingenious? Some would say that such a person doesn't have to be much more than average. Here's the deal. Under the tipping point notion, also labeled as the last straw theory, a solo coder might try something that just so happens to tilt AI into becoming AGI. The developer might not have had any clue beforehand that they would prevail in attaining AGI. When Edison was trying to find the right filament to make viable light bulbs, he reportedly made several thousand attempts. It could be that a solo coder just keeps grinding away and manages to get lucky by finding the right aspect that shifts AI into AGI. A chuckle among AI insiders is that it would be ironic if some mediocre AI developer was the one who happened to fall into the miracle of achieving AGI. Imagine the frustration and exasperation of all the world's brightest AI developers. They would be chagrined that a less-than-stellar AI person almost mindlessly struck gold by sheer dumb luck. That idea that being ingenious isn't a necessary requirement gives tremendous hope to a lot of those AI developers who are desirous of being the one solo coder to discover or invent AGI. Though other AI developers might thumb their nose at you now, aha, wait until you are sitting on top of the world as the celebrated deviser of AGI. Remember the famous line by Robert Frost: 'Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.' Good luck to all those adventurous mavericks seeking to achieve AGI.