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

361–370 of 392 posts

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#361

Post by visarga »

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

There already exist drones that kill based on AI.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#362

Post by visarga »

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?

> If I "accidentally" make a break though right now. The AI could evolve into a super intelligence before dinner time.

We don't need to rely only on humans to design every aspect of neural networks. We are already computationally searching for AI designs that work better. In a recent paper, hundreds of variations of design for the neuron of the LSTM network have been tried to see which one is the best and which of its components are important.

Also, we can play with networks like clay - starting from already trained networks, we can add new layers, make layers wider, transfer knowledge from one complex network into a simpler one and initialize new networks from old networks so as they don't start from scratch every time. We can download models trained by other groups and just plug them in (see word2vec for example). This makes iterative experimenting and building on previous success much faster.

I don't think evolving a super intelligence will happen by simple accident, it will be an incremental process of search. The next big things I predict will be capable robots and decent dialogue agents.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#363

Post by Houshalter »

p1esk wrote: post #351
chongli wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mil…

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. You call this a "clue"? It's like saying that computer architecture is "Billions and billions of transistors with orders of magnitude more connections between them". Not gonna get very far with this knowledge. ...we don't have a million times lower memory latency and...…

>Ok, let's pretend we have an infinitely fast computer in every way, with infinite memory. No bottleneck of any kind. What are you going to do with it, if your goal is to build AGI?

You would obviously run AIXI: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI

We know how to make AI given infinite computing power. That's not really hard. You can solve tons of problems with infinite computing power. All of the real work is optimizing it to work within resource constraints.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#364

Post by mrdrozdov »

Imagine you've programmed a spider-like robot which sole purpose is to maintain some energy level (by plugging into an outlet), gather resources, and create a clone of itself when it has enough resources. How do you defend against something like that?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#365

Post by kayamon »

mrdrozdov wrote: post #364

Imagine you've programmed a spider-like robot which sole purpose is to maintain some energy level (by plugging into an outlet), gather resources, and create a clone of itself when it has enough resources. How do you defend against something like that?

That isn't really any different from say, a tiger, which is currently facing extinction due to our actions against it.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#366

Post by p1esk »

Houshalter wrote: post #363
p1esk wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. You call this a "clue"? It's like saying that computer architecture is "Billions and billions of transistors with orders of magnitude more connections between them". Not gonna get very far with this knowledge. ...we don't have a million times lower memory latency and...…

>Ok, let's pretend we have an infinitely fast computer in every way, with infinite memory. No bottleneck of any kind. What are you going to do with it, if your goal is to build AGI? You would obviously run AIXI: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI We know how to make AI given infinite computing power. That's not really hard. You can solve tons of problems with infinite computing power. All of the real work is optimi…

Yes, I've been just thinking about it, and even without looking at your link, it's easy to see how to build (find) AGI given an infinitely fast computer.

Ok, then, back to the very fast computer.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#367

Post by sawwit »

Eerie wrote: post #341
sawwit wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I wrote "almost autonomously".

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#368

Post by sawwit »

baq wrote: post #328
sawwit wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Short range slingshot mechanisms you got me thinking, googling, then frowning. imagine this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crzXD6NjBAE milspecced.

Admittedly the more interesting part will be the software flying the drone. It seems we are going to need a lot of these [1] and targeted people will need to wear safety goggles.

[1]: http://i.imgur.com/aAh4jwq.gifv

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#369

Post by Houshalter »

sawwit wrote: post #299
_yosefk wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, unlike controlling humans, whatever that means, it's very easy to limit the impact of AI - all you have to do is treat advanced chip fabrication processes the way nuclear technology is treated, and put a legal limit on processor power so it's somewhere where it was in the late 80s. (So you have office software and email but neither YouTube nor Doom 3; a reasonable price for our survival, I find.) Fewer orga…

> The risks of things like rogue drones made from cheap commodity hardware, which might be sensible as well … In Prof. Tegmark’s recent presentation at the UN he mentioned the possibility of extremely cheap drones that approach the victim's face very quickly and pierce a bolt into their brain through one of their eyes. Such a drone wouldn't require high precision projectiles which would make it cheap to build. > Of c…

>the possibility of extremely cheap drones that approach the victim's face very quickly and pierce a bolt into their brain through one of their eyes.

That's super impractical for many reasons. Drones don't move fast enough, nor can they change their velocity quickly enough to do that. People will almost certainly react if they see the drone coming for them, and cover their face, or swat it down, etc.

But even if it did work, it's not a serious threat. For some reason people spend a ton of time thinking about all the ways new technologies could be abused by terrorists. For some reason they never consider that tons of existing technologies can be abused too.

Many people have come up with really effective terrorist ideas that would kill lots of people, or do lots of damage. The reason the world is still here is because terrorists are really rare, and really incompetent.

> Short range slingshot mechanisms are several orders of magnitude cheaper to build than firearms.

Not necessarily. It's actually not that difficult to make a firearm from simple tools and parts from a hardware store. And it will be way more deadly and accurate than a sling. Not to mention simple pipe bombs and stuff.

Post reply on HN