Introducing OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#341

Post by Eerie » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 8:37 PM UTC

sawwit wrote: post #325

_yosefk wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely cheap drones that approach the victim's face very quickly and pierce a bolt into their brain It's not much more of a threat to society than a handgun. A WMD it is not, unless you make a lot of these and launch them at the same time, which is probably less effective than an H-bomb. (The one major difference between such a drone and a handgun is you might be able to target politicians and other people who'r…

> It's not much more of a threat to society than a handgun. These drones could be programmed to target specific groups of people, for example of a certain ethnicity, and attack them almost autonomously. Short range slingshot mechanisms are several orders of magnitude cheaper to build than firearms. Moreover, the inhibition threshold is much lower if you are not involved in first-hand violence. There is also a much lo…

>These drones could be programmed to target specific groups of people, for example of a certain ethnicity, and attack them almost autonomously.

Are these drones also self-replicating and fully independent?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#342

Post by ZenoArrow » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

rebootthesystem wrote: post #314

ZenoArrow wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a commonly held belief that gun violence is linked to mental illness, but it doesn't appear to be true: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/12/mental-illness-wrong-scap...

Well, I don't know what term to use. I am using "crazy" to refer to the fact that some abnormal thought process is behind someone picking up a gun, knife, sword, axe, brick or driving a car to kill even one person or to engage in mass killings, to drive a car through a crowd, blow-up a building or use a gun or guns to mow down people in a theater. Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bun…

> "Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bunch of rounds in the back of their car, put on a bullet-proof vest and go shoot-up the neighborhood community center, church, school or mall."

You've missed the point of the article I shared with you. The point was normal people under extraordinary circumstances can be pushed to breaking point and take it out on others. Normal people do not always behave normally.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#343

Post by chongli » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

p1esk wrote: post #338

chongli wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same thing though. All those GPU cards have to talk to their memory through a memory bus. I'm talking about a system where memory is divided up among the cores and they all communicate with one another by message passing. This is analogous to the architecture of the human brain.

We still have no clue about the architecture of the human brain. Even if we did, it's not clear we need to replicate it. My point is - even if we had, say, a million times more flops, and a million times more memory than the largest supercomputer today, we would still have no clue what to do with it. The problem is lack of algorithms, lack of theory, not lack of hardware.

We still have no clue about the architecture of the human brain. Even if we did, it's not clear we need to replicate it.

We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them.

even if we had, say, a million times more flops, and a million times more memory

The point is that we could have those things but we don't have a million times lower memory latency and we don't have a million times more memory bandwidth. Those things haven't been improving at all for a very long time.

There are tons of algorithms we can think of that are completely infeasible on our current architectures due to the penalty we pay every time we have a cache miss. Simulating something like a human brain would be pretty well nothing but cache misses due to its massively parallel nature. It's not at all inconceivable to me that we already have the algorithm for general intelligence, we just don't have a big enough machine to run it fast enough.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#344

Post by DanBC » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

rebootthesystem wrote: post #314

ZenoArrow wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a commonly held belief that gun violence is linked to mental illness, but it doesn't appear to be true: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/12/mental-illness-wrong-scap...

Well, I don't know what term to use. I am using "crazy" to refer to the fact that some abnormal thought process is behind someone picking up a gun, knife, sword, axe, brick or driving a car to kill even one person or to engage in mass killings, to drive a car through a crowd, blow-up a building or use a gun or guns to mow down people in a theater. Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bun…

> "More guns in Paris would have saved lives". Both of which are undeniably factual statements.

No, that's definitely not undeniably factual.

And your continued repeated use of "crazies" is fucking repugnant.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#345

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #254

bholdr wrote: post #147

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…

Pretty sure a group like that will be looking for postdocs etc. Andrej Karpathy only completed his PhD this month, so I guess he'd fit into that category. I imagine he had a few options to choose from.

[deleted]

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#346

Post by argonaut » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 11:02 PM UTC

outlace wrote: post #323

argonaut wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is we know we will eventually achieve AGI while we have absolutely zero reason to expect an alien invasion.

Not at all. We have good reason to believe we will eventually make contact with an alien species. How do you know we will eventually achieve AGI? We humans are evidence it's physically possible. Well we space-faring humans are evidence it's physically possible we'll make contact with ruthless space aliens.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#347

Post by argonaut » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 11:03 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #332

argonaut wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a paragraph basically saying "there's been some cool stuff happening (you may have even heard about) in this particular field". Extrapolating that to the entire organization thinking that "neural networks are the answer to AI" as OP claimed is silly.

Of the researchers they hired (some of them don't appear to be active researchers right now, like Trevor Blackwell), they're all are deep learning researchers...

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#348

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 11:08 PM UTC

benashford wrote: post #300

Houshalter wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survey's of AI experts give a median prediction that we will have human level AI within 30 years. And a non-trivial probability of it happening in 10-20 years. They are almost unanimous in predicting it will happen within this century.

They were also unanimous it would happen last century? What do we mean by "human level" anyway? Last time I got talking to an AI expert he said current research wouldn't lead to anything like a general intelligence, rather human level at certain things. Machines exceed human capacities already in many fields after all...

I don't think that many people predicted AI by 2000 with high certainty. And in any case, predictions should get more accurate as time goes on and we learn more.

"Human level" as in actually as intelligent as a human. An artificial brain just like a biological one, or at least with the same abilities.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#349

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 11:15 PM UTC

cwp wrote: post #317

Houshalter wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of nanotechnology is that it can be built better than biological life. It could outcompete it in it's own environment, or at least different environments. Solar panels can collect more energy than photosynthesis. Planes can fly faster than any bird. Guns are far more effective than any animal's weapons. Steam engines can run more efficiently than biological digestion. And we can get power from fuel sources…

> Solar panels can collect more energy than photosynthesis. Planes can fly faster than any bird. Guns are far more effective than any animal's weapons. Steam engines can run more efficiently than biological digestion. And we can get power from fuel sources biology doesn't touch, like fossil fuels or nuclear. A gun isn't effective unless human loads it, aims it and pulls the trigger. All your other examples are the sa…

Because we haven't had the reason or ability to make self replicating machines yet. It's possible though. With AI and some robotics, you can replace all humans with machines. The economy doesn't need us.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#350

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 11:20 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #331

Houshalter wrote: post #265

Earlier 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…

>But we can't prevent it from killing the programmer and stealing the button for itself. Not to be condescending, but do you have any idea what practical AI actually looks like? The scenario you've imagined makes about as much sense as a laptop sprouting arms and strangling its owner.

Yes, I'm very familiar with current AI. It's my hobby. I'm not really talking about current AI though. I'm talking about a machine with thousands of times more intelligence than humans.