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

221–230 of 392 posts

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#221

Post by sombremesa »

athenot wrote: post #183
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 (cook…

Well, with that logic you can bring guns right back into the equation. Soldering guns, glue guns, nail guns, vaccination guns...

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#222

Post by nicolashahn »

athenot wrote: post #183
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 (cook…

You're right, guns are pure evil. Clearly, we should take them out of the hands of cops, bodyguards, hunters, and civilians defending themselves.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#223

Post by efng »

p1esk wrote: post #217
pratnala wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how your comment goes from no issues to alarmist.

You missed his point. People are the problem, not computers. Computers can help people hurt other people, just like guns help people hurt other people. But instead the hype is about the possibility of computers hurting people, on their own. Which, at least at this point, is about as alarming as the possibility that a gun will go off on its own.

And I think that you and the great-grandparent missed the point: It's not people, it's sentience that is dangerous.

Since the dawn of time that meant man or gods. Soon that list will need to include computers.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#224

Post by Fricken »

argonaut wrote: post #159
jmatthews wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Think about how long it takes a baby to learn (a few years). There is no reason an AI would self-improve multiplicatively in hours or days or even weeks.

With a powerful enough computer the learning curve of a simulated baby could hypothetically be condensed to minutes, or seconds. Which would appear to us in normal time to be an intelligence explosion.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#225

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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.

I don't see why a program needs to be a self-improving Charles Stross monster to have an impact on the world, for good or ill.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#226

Post by argonaut »

lightcatcher wrote: post #215
argonaut wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof is on the people warning us of the impending AI apocalypse. The fact is we are nowhere close to AI. We don't understand how the brain works. A review of the ML literature will also show we barely understand how neural nets work.

The fact that we don't understand how neural nets work despite the excellent results makes an AI apocalypse more likely, not less. This means that if we ever create strong AI, we will likely not understand it initially. Note: I'm personally not too worried about the AI apocalypse, but I think "we don't even understand neural nets" should cause more concern, not less.

True AI will require several breakthroughs. The fact that we don't understand neural nets means that much of the progress thus far has been hand-wavy and hacky iterative improvement (engineering, vs. theory). This means progress is very likely to plateau. When everything is hacky and you don't understand what's going on, those breakthroughs are not going to happen.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#227

Post by meowface »

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #196

Man I dunno about some of this media hype surrounding the topic of AI. I understand how powerful ML/AI algorithms are for general pattern matching (with a big enough computer, gradient descent can learn a lot of things...), but this whole skynet/doomsday fear thing seems ridiculous. I guess the risk is embedding into systems that manage missiles or something. But you don't need sophisticated algorithms for that to be…

The Skynet scenario seems farfetched because we're very far off from that kind of AI.

But on the chance that some day we do reach that level of advancement, even if it's 100 or 500 years, can't hurt to prepare, right? Better to waste time preparing unnecessarily than to face destruction from improper planning.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#228

Post by argonaut »

Fricken wrote: post #224
argonaut wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how long it takes a baby to learn (a few years). There is no reason an AI would self-improve multiplicatively in hours or days or even weeks.

With a powerful enough computer the learning curve of a simulated baby could hypothetically be condensed to minutes, or seconds. Which would appear to us in normal time to be an intelligence explosion.

The simulated baby would extremely tax to the limit the entire resources of whatever supercomputer trained it. People have to run deep learning programs on multiple GPUs right now, and performance is constrained by memory bandwidth, which does not follow Moore's law.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#229

Post by argonaut »

ceejayoz wrote: post #7
hacker_9 wrote: post #3

This is about 100 years too early. Seriously why do people think neural networks are the answer to AI? They are proven to be stupid outside of their training data. We have such a long way to go. This fear-mongering is pointless.

The linked site says nothing about neural networks.

The site straight up says "deep learning." Which is neural networks.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#230

Post by eli_gottlieb »

azinman2 wrote: post #184
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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!

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

Ok: what don't I know, that is interesting and relevant to this problem? Tell me.

>I mean, why can't I live forever?

Mostly because your cells weren't designed to heal oxidation damage, so eventually the damage accumulates until it interferes with homeostasis. There are a bunch of other reasons and mechanisms, but overall, it comes down to the fact that the micro-level factors in aging only take effect well after reproductive age, so evolution didn't give a fuck about fixing them.

>Let's just list the problems and solve them in the next year!

I said I'd have a plan with lists of open problems in nine months. I expect that even at the most wildly optimistic, it would take a period of years after that to actually solve the open problems and a further period of years to build and implement the software. And that's if you actually gave me time to get expert, and resources to hire the experts who know more than me, without which none of it is getting done.

As it is, I expect machine-learning systems to grow towards worthiness of the name "artificial intelligence" within the next 10-15 years (by analogy, the paper yesterday in Science is just the latest in a research program going back at least to 2003 or 2005). There's no point rushing it, either. Just because we can detail much of the broad shape of the right research-program ahead-of-time, especially as successful research programs have been conducted on which to build, doesn't mean it's time to run around like a chicken with its head cut-off.

Post reply on HN