131–140 of 428 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course, a cat is not conscious. How do you know?
It's a very good question; I think "of course" is WAY overstating it. I'm interested to know what the GP means when they say "conscious".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm maybe but aren't humans capable of learning too? One could make the same statement of two humans of different ranks playing each other. In some cases, the more highly ranked player might be the only one who knows who's winning. This doesn't mean that the lesser ranked player can't improve over time. It just means that at that moment, that player is inexperienced or less skilled, which we already knew.
Alas, time is not on meat's side in this one.
I respect your work a lot. I've studied and used ML myself, including gensim, in industry. I've given nowhere near your level of contribution to society / the field. My opinion is true AI is quite a ways off. I haven't read anything from a ML researcher that says it isn't. Perhaps you weren't saying true AI is nearer.
I don't think Ke Jie would win against Alpha Go either.
I agree. Lee lost a title 3-2 to Ke Je recently but he lost very convincingly against AlphaGo. Ke Je is not that stronger than Lee. He's going to lose too but he's 18 so I understand that he's feeling he can do anything. My feeling is that AlphaGo could be a couple of stones stronger than the best pros. Considering that dans are capped at 9 but there are 9 dans that always win against some other 9 dans, the best pros…
Once again, I am so glad that I caught this on the live-stream because it will be in the history books. The implications of these games are absolutely tremendous. Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition. We have arguably created something that beats the human brain in its own arena, although the brain and AlphaGO do not use the same underlying mechanisms. And this is the supervised model. Once unsupervis…
> Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition It's still a game that can be described in terms of clear state-machine rules. The real challenge for AI is making sense and acting in the real world, which can't be described in such way. I consider advances in self-driving cars much more interesting in that sense - even if, even there, there are at least some rule-based constraints that can be applied to simpli…
My (long) commentary here: https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228 Sample: At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for probability of long-term victory rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol's probabili…
This is reminding me more and more of the central theme of the book Echopraxia, which was that when dealing with superhuman intelligences, you are by definition not smart enough to even know whether you're winning.
It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)
What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us? It feels like computers have taken one aspect of humanness: logic. Computers could do arithmetic, do algebra, play chess, and now they can play go. It hurts because logic is usually thought to be one of the highest of human characteristics. Yes computers might never be able to replicate emotion, but even dogs have that. There's still some aspects we h…
I'm sure there's always someone that can write books or maths papers or symphonies better than you. I don't think this robs you of purpose, unless your purpose is to be the absolute best at something.
Anyway, I find it curious that you would say logic is a quintessentially human trait, because humans are naturally quite bad at logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think so too. I actually feel really bad for Lee Sedol if he loses 5-0.
The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)
What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us? It feels like computers have taken one aspect of humanness: logic. Computers could do arithmetic, do algebra, play chess, and now they can play go. It hurts because logic is usually thought to be one of the highest of human characteristics. Yes computers might never be able to replicate emotion, but even dogs have that. There's still some aspects we h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a tool if you can't control it. Politicians fool countries delivering empty promises about better health, education and security. A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box
Well, it would have to have a motivation to do so. Evolution has put complex motivations into human beings for billions of years, self preservation being chief among them. Even if we put motivation for self preservation into an AI, we might not do as well as nature did, leaving the AI open to self destruction or shutdown by humans - simply because the AI has no motivation not to allow humans to turn it off. Human des…
The problem is when you have multiple AIs. Then same evolutionary principles apply. Paranoid and self-sustaining AIs survive, and the circle goes on...