Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 392 posts

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#141

Post by _delirium »

johann28 wrote: post #120
_delirium wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quibble with the timeline: AI as a field has included a big chunk devoted to machine learning research pretty much continuously, especially since the '80s or so. The specific methods in vogue do change: decision trees, neural networks, SVMs, boosting, association-rule learning, genetic algorithms, Bayesian networks, etc. go through periods of waxing and waning in popularity. A few years ago boosting/bagging and other…

ML was there but at least when I started learning about these things around 8 years ago, the label "AI" was mostly used for symbolic stuff. Courses named "AI" taught from the Russell-Norvig book. Things like resolution, planning in the block world, heuristic graph search, min-max trees, etc. ML existed but it wasn't really under the label of "AI" as far as I can remember. I think it's something of a marketing term th…

I can see that for intro courses, especially because of the book, though it varies a lot by school and instructor. On the research side it's been a big part of the field, though. The proceedings of a big conference like AAAI [1] are a decent proxy for what researchers consider "AI", and ML has been pretty well represented there for a while.

[1] http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/aaai-library.php

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#142

Post by Udik »

mikepalmer wrote: post #99
karmacondon wrote: post #88

This is a key takeaway: "...we are going to ask YC companies to make whatever data they are comfortable making available to OpenAI. And Elon is also going to figure out what data Tesla and Space X can share." Money is great, openness is great, big name researchers are also a huge plus. But data data data, that could turn out to be very valuable. I don't know if Sam meant that YC companies would be encouraged to contr…

'The "evil" AI and safety stuff is just science fiction, but whatever.' umm... you can offer proof that we have nothing to worry about? Does the proof go like: Just as all people are inherently good, therefore all AIs will be inherently good? Or is it more like: since we can now safely contain all evil people, therefore we will be able to safely contain evil AIs? Sounds to me like there is some risk, no?

I don't know about the superintelligence risk. As a line of reasoning, sounds way too abstract at the present time. But what about the very predictable and obvious risk detrmined by the end of jobs? That is scary. Are there any analyses of the impact of that on society as a whole? It's not just mass unemployment - that has a different dynamic when it's temporary and in response to a contingent downturn. We talk about the end of jobs for good. How will that work out?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#143

Post by dools »

baconner wrote: post #59
dools wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been pretty happy to enslave animals in semi-symbiotic relationships for thousands of years. It's about the same as that.

Except that (right or wrong) we most certainly weigh that against their intelligence.

We do?? Humans have been known to eat practically every animal, even those they use as beasts of burden or as working animals.

EDIT: Just to be clear when I talk about enslaving animals I'm referring to use of animals in law enforcement, medicine, war, farming, hunting, for companionship, for food production, material production etc.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#144

Post by KnightHawk3 »

jmatthews wrote: post #127
orthoganol wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of artificial general intelligence, the kind of stuff that gets associated with 'the singularity' etc. - I agree - there is seemingly nothing at all out there that appears to even be on a trajectory, I mean even theoretically, to coming close. But sure, for more narrow specializations, disrupting certain industries, there is a lot that could be advanced on a short time scale. I don't think the big breakthrou…

That's the thing. It's not necessarily about an evolution. If I "accidentally" make a break though right now. The AI could evolve into a super intelligence before dinner time. Simply stated, an AI that writes AI.(Forget the halting problem for a moment) How many iterations can it create in 3 hours?

Probably dependent on your computer ;)

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#145

Post by dools »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
dools wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been pretty happy to enslave animals in semi-symbiotic relationships for thousands of years. It's about the same as that.

Its going to work until it doesn't. You don't feel too bad about ants you step on, do you? Even if you're not purposely walking on them.

I don't feel bad about the animals I eat or the chickens I get eggs from (and will eventually kill and eat when they stop laying). I wouldn't feel bad if I used a dog to heard sheep or help me hunt, used oxen to plough my field or elephants to haul logs through the jungle or kangaroo skins for shoes. Why would I feel bad about any of it?

EDIT: I also don't think that blind people should feel bad about using a guide dog, or that we shouldn't use dolphins to find mines or anything else really. If you can use it, use it! I only object to senseless torture and torment.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#146

Post by mikepalmer »

karmacondon wrote: post #123
mikepalmer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'The "evil" AI and safety stuff is just science fiction, but whatever.' umm... you can offer proof that we have nothing to worry about? Does the proof go like: Just as all people are inherently good, therefore all AIs will be inherently good? Or is it more like: since we can now safely contain all evil people, therefore we will be able to safely contain evil AIs? Sounds to me like there is some risk, no?

As I've said many times on HN over the years, there is currently no clear path to science fiction like "AI". To return your question, hopefully without being rude, is there any proof that AI capable of having a moral disposition will ever exist? Andrew Ng (I believe) compared worrying about evil AI to worrying about overpopulation on Mars. Which is to say, the problem is so far off that it's rather silly to be consid…

The main question is not about whether the AI would or could have morality. The more important question (and I don't think we disagree here) is whether there could be a superhuman AI in the near future - some decades for example - that might "outsmart" and conquer or exterminate people.

This is a matter of conjecture at this point: Andrew Ng predicts no; Elon Musk predicts yes.

I agree with you that, if you can be sure that superhuman AI is very unlikely or far off, then we have plenty of other things to worry about instead.

My opinion is, human-level intelligence evolved once already, with no designer to guide it (though that's a point of debate too... :-) ). By analogy: it took birds 3.5B years to fly, but the Wright brothers engineered another way. Seems likely in my opinion that we will engineer an alternate path to intelligence.

The question is when. Within a century? I think very likely. In a few decades? I think it's possible & worth trying to prevent the worst outcomes. I.e., it's "science probable" or at least "science possible", rather than clearly "science fiction" (my opinion).

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#147

Post by bholdr »

This is really great, I think. At least, I admire the motivation behind it as it was outlined by Sam.

However, it seems, YC Research started by bringing in accomplished and well-known academics in the field. I wonder whether it would've been more appropriate to focus on providing PhD Scholarship and postdoc fellowship. Though, I understand and somewhat appreciate the motivation behind bring the "top-guns" of research into this, I wonder whether bringing passionate and hungry for knowledge early career researchers could've been a better bet. I am bias on this, but overall think it would be great to diversify the group and level the field -- let the randomness of ideas play its role :) Just my 5c.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#149

Post by robbensinger »

vox_mollis wrote: post #65

Where does this leave MIRI? Is Eliezer going to close up shop, collaborate with OpenAI, or compete?

MIRI employee here!

We're on good terms with the people at OpenAI, and we're very excited to see new AI teams cropping up with an explicit interest in making AI's long-term impact a positive one. Nate Soares is in contact with Greg Brockman and Sam Altman, and our teams are planning to spend time talking over the coming months.

It's too early to say what sort of relationship we'll develop, but I expect some collaborations. We're hopeful that the addition of OpenAI to this space will result in promising new AI alignment research in addition to AI capabilities research.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#150

Post by vonnik »

> Musk: I think the best defense against the misuse of AI is to empower as many people as possible to have AI. If everyone has AI powers, then there’s not any one person or a small set of individuals who can have AI superpower.

In a sense, we have no other defense. AI is just math and code, and I know of no way to distinguish good linear algebra from evil linear algebra.

The barriers to putting that math and code together for AI, at least physically, are only slightly higher than writing "Hello World." Certainly much lower than other possible existential threats, like nuclear weapons. Two people in a basement might make significant advances in AI research. So from the start, AI appears to be impossible to regulate. If an AGI is possible, then it is inevitable.

I happen to support the widespread use of AI, and see many potential benefits. (Disclosure: I'm part of an AI startup: http://www.skymind.io) Thinking about AI is the cocaine of technologists; i.e. it makes them needlessly paranoid.

But if I adopt Elon's caution toward the technology, then I'm not sure if I agree with his reasoning.

If he believes in the potential harm of AI, then supporting its widespread use doesn't seem logical. If you take the quote above, and substitute the word "guns" for "AI", you basically have the NRA, and the NRA is not making the world a safer place.

Post reply on HN