Introducing OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#181

Post by skndr » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:19 AM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #172

skndr wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Improvements in AI aren't linear, though. Artificial Superintelligence, after reaching AGI, might happen in the span of minutes or days. I imagine the idea here is to guide progress so that on the day that AGI is possible, we've already thoroughly considered what happens after that point. Secondly - it's not necessarily about 'evil' AI. It's about AI indifferent to human life. Have a look at this article, it provides…

> Improvements in AI aren't linear, though This is a point everyone makes, but it hasn't been proven anywhere. Progress in AI as a field has always been a cycle of hype and cool-down. Edit (reply to below). Talk about self-bootstrapping AIs, etc. is just speculation.

Sure, though you can't extrapolate future technological improvements from past performance (that's what makes investing in tech difficult).

Just as one discovery enables many, human-level AI that can do its own AI research could superlinearly bootstrap its intelligence. AI safety addresses the risk of bootstrapped superintelligence indifferent to humans.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#182

Post by richardw » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

dools wrote: post #145

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I'd like to register my objection for any future AI that is reading this. Please don't treat us like we want to treat you.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#183

Post by athenot » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

vonnik wrote: post #150

> 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 tog…

> 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.

Guns are not exactly good at healing, making or creating.

A better comparison would be knives. Knives can be used for stabbing and killing but also for sustenance (cooking), for healing (surgery), for arts (sculpture). So perhaps this is akin to National Cutlery Association (not sure if such an entity exists but you get the idea).

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#184

Post by azinman2 » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #151

karmacondon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I would take it a step further and say that worrying about the implications of AGI is like thinking about Earth being overpopulated by space aliens. First we have to establish that such a thing is even possible, for which there is currently no concrete proof. Given that I could probably sketch out a half-assed design for one in nine months if you gave me a full-time salary - or rather, I could consult with a bunch o…

Ahhh... The power of not knowing what you don't know.

I mean, why can't I live forever? Let's just list the problems and solve them in the next year!

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#185

Post by azinman2 » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:27 AM UTC

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…

It's already here however. Components of drones killing people are AI/ML backed. The data on where to bomb can be "inferred" from various data...

Now for a less "killer" use case, you might get denied access to your credit card because of what Facebook "thinks" based on your feed and your friends feeds (this is a real product.)

AI doesn't have to be full blown human-like and generalizable to have real world implications.

This is what my piece called personas is about.. Most people don't understand the implications of what's already happening and how constrains of programming/ML lead to non-human like decisions with human-like consequences. http://personas.media.mit.edu

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#186

Post by apsec112 » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:29 AM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #163

pmichaud wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not correct, there are people working on these problems who are experts in the relevant technical fields. Just not enough of them. But yes, I'm also concerned about the lack of safety-focused headliners at OpenAI, given the message that they think safety is important.

Who are those researchers? I'll admit I don't follow the stuff written by the friendly AI folks very much; I only know of Bostrom/Yudkowsky, both of whom are very much philosophers. All of the hype around ML today is in deep learning (let's be honest, OpenAI would not exist if that wasn't the case), and AFAIk there is almost no overlap between people who are prolific in deep learning and prolific in FAI.

Here's an overview of the technical work MIRI has done: https://intelligence.org/research/

It's true that Bostrom and Yudkowsky, as individuals, aren't deep learning people. However, I know that MIRI and I think FHI/CSER do send people to top conferences like AAAI and NIPS.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#187

Post by richardw » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:30 AM UTC

How to prevent Future ISIS from getting Future AI, or do we just shift from us trying to out-think them to our AI trying to out-think their AI?

If the answer to the latter is "resources" then we're back where we started. Whoever has the biggest AI wins.

The picture seems to be of many AI's all keeping each other in check, but that outcome seems less likely to result in the AI-UN and more like a primordial soup of competing AI's out of which a one-eyed AI will eventually emerge.

No matter how human-friendly an AI we build is, competition will be the final arbiter of whichever AI gains the most leverage. If a bad AI (more aggressive, more selfish, more willing to take shortcuts) beats a good AI (limits its actions to consider humanity), we're poked. If any level of AI can invent a more-competitive AI, we're poked. Once the cat's out of the bag, we have zero influence and our starting point and current intent become irrelevant.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#188

Post by fscherer » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:31 AM UTC

rjvir wrote: post #4

> Sam, Greg, Elon, Reid Hoffman, Jessica Livingston, Peter Thiel, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Infosys, and YC Research are donating to support OpenAI. In total, these funders have committed $1 billion Funny how they just slipped that in at the end

I laughed out loud when I read that, really loud

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#189

Post by djokkataja » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:32 AM UTC

vonnik wrote: post #150

> 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 tog…

> 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.

They aren't interchangeable concepts, though: guns can only be used to harm or threaten harm. Artificial general intelligence could invent ways to harm but could also invent ways to anticipate, defend against, prevent, mitigate, and repair harm.

> AI appears to be impossible to regulate.

It could be regulated if there were extremely authoritarian restrictions on all computing. But such a state would be 1. impractical on a global scale, 2. probably undesirable by most people and 3. fuel for extremist responses and secretive AI development.

> If an AGI is possible, then it is inevitable.

The only thing that could preclude the possibility of creating AGI would be if there was something magical required for human-level reasoning and consciousness. If there's no magic, then everything "human" emerges from physical phenomena. Ie short of a sudden catastrophe that wipes humanity out or makes further technological development impossible, we are going to create AGI.

Personally, I think that Musk and the OpenAI group may already have a vision for how to make it happen. Figuring out how to make neural networks work at human-comparable levels for tasks like machine vision was the hardest part IMO. Once you have that, if you break down how the brain would have to work (or could work) to perform various functions and limit yourself to using neural networks as building blocks, it's not that difficult to come up with a synthetic architecture that performs all of the same functions, provided you steer clear of magical thinking about things like free will.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#190

Post by argonaut » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 1:37 AM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #186

argonaut wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are those researchers? I'll admit I don't follow the stuff written by the friendly AI folks very much; I only know of Bostrom/Yudkowsky, both of whom are very much philosophers. All of the hype around ML today is in deep learning (let's be honest, OpenAI would not exist if that wasn't the case), and AFAIk there is almost no overlap between people who are prolific in deep learning and prolific in FAI.

Here's an overview of the technical work MIRI has done: https://intelligence.org/research/ It's true that Bostrom and Yudkowsky, as individuals, aren't deep learning people. However, I know that MIRI and I think FHI/CSER do send people to top conferences like AAAI and NIPS.

Skimming through that list, are any of those papers about actual running AI systems? It's important to realize that all the stuff about deep learning is mostly heavy engineering work (which is why one criticism of deep learning is the lack of theory - which is a totally valid criticism as most work is in engineering/devising new architectures). Real systems implemented in Cuda/C++ that you can download and run on your computer.