So, um, what is Open about OpenAI? Is it Open Source? Not AFAICS.
Introducing OpenAI
301–310 of 392 posts
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#302OpenAI might be equivalent to an open global market of graph annotated microservices that can recombine automatically (and search as deep as budgeted) towards whatever goal a client will be able to pay for processing. Not sure if that is safer.
With the right microservices available in the market (including business model scripts etc - every service could be an automatically pay per use microservice) automated businesses could be budgeted to search for sustainable market entities models which could reproduce themselves (copy/create microservices should be basic) and evolve in global corporations with a life and objectives of their own. One might need immensely processing budgets to compete/control with such automated corporations.
Digital and/or biological, it seems, we are exactly in this business+market+life+AI game. Curious to learn what happens at the next levels?
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason for this: it makes us able to adapt to _any_ environment on earth. We learn everything from our parents/guardians who have learnt all the 'right' ways of doing things. Look around, are we not the dominant species?
From our point of view we're the most dominate, but from other points of view you could easily argue that bacteria are the most dominate. There are a lot more of them and they will almost certainly outlive us.
This doesn't really seem relevant when we're talking about the development of knowledge through training in humans.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
The risk of AI comes from the control problem. We have a vague idea on how to build AIs. The work is just to optimize the algorithms extensively so they can run in real time. But we have no idea how to control those AIs. We can push a "reward button" every time it does something we like. But we can't prevent it from killing the programmer and stealing the button for itself. It doesn't matter at all who makes AI first…
Lets start by figuring out how to control humans before we start on the AIs.
Let's figure out the human brain first.
Let's say you have these two options: (1) A technology that will make you feel the best you possibly can, without any negative consequences, or (2) a robot that will do stuff for you, like cleaning your house, driving you to work. Now which one would you choose?
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#305Man 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.
Yes, it can definitely hurt to prepare, if you're wasting resources.
Try proposing that we prepare for an alien invasion, and you'll be laughed out of the room.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#306Earlier 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.
You won't find direct ML work from MIRI because: 1. AI / ML is not AGI. 2. Deep learning may be a tool used by an AGI, but is not itself capable of becoming an AGI. 3. MIRI believes it would be irresponsible to build, or make a serious effort at building, an AGI before the problem of friendliness / value alignment is solved. So are they philosophers? Of a sort, but at least Eliezer is one who can do heavy math and co…
We are in agreement on the facts (1 and 2). I was quibbling with pmichaud's implication there is any significant overlap between deep learning / traditional ML and the FAI/AGI community.
I'm not speaking about anyone's abilities, but from my perspective Eliezer's work is mostly abstract.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#307Isn't this the plot for Avengers: Age of Ultron?
> Isn't this the plot for Avengers: Age of Ultron?
It is. Also for Terminator Genisys.
I suspect it was a PR stunt that took a life of its own. These rich/famous people with zero understanding of the AI field got somehow convinced that they need to save the world from the highly improbable and they keep going, long after the movies ran.
It's ridiculous, of course. They might as well pledge funds for OpenTelepathy and OpenRemoteViewing.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#308Earlier 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…
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…
Or maybe the first few AGIs will want to spend their days watching youtube vids rather than diving into AI research. The only intelligences we know of that are capable of working on AGI are humans. We're assuming that not only will we be able to replicate human-like intelligence (seems likely, but might be much further away than many think), but that we'll be able to isolate the "industrious" side of human intelligence (not sure if we'll even be able to agree on what this is), enhance it in some way (how?), and that this enhancement will be productive.
But even if we can do all that any time soon (which is a pretty huge if), we don't even know what the effect will be. It's possible that if we remove all of the "I don't want to study math, I want to play games" or "I'm feeling depressed now because I think Tim's mad at me" parts of the human intelligence, we'll end up removing the human ingenuity important to AGI research. It might be that the resulting AGI is much more horrible at researching AI than a random person you pull off the street.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitrogen research. Haber Bosch is a primary example. Nitrogen both creates and destroys. Look harder. ;)
How does nitrogen research have the capability of solving all the world's problems?
At one time, all of world's problems summed up to food availability.
Our existence is Haber Bosch's hack.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#310Earlier 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…
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 su…
We assume that we'll be able to replicate human level intelligence because we'll eventually be able to replicate the physical characteristics of the brain (though neuroscientists seem to think we're not going to be able to do this for a very long time). Superhuman intelligence, though - that's making the assumption that there exists a much more efficient structure for intelligence and that we (or human intelligence level AIs) will be able to figure it out.
So returning to your Wright brothers example, it's more like saying: "It took birds 3.5B years to fly, but the Wright brothers engineered another way. It seems likely that we'll soon be able to manufacture even more efficient wings small enough to wear on our clothes that will enable us to glide for hundreds of feet with only a running start."