Live data from Hacker News

The Great A.I. Awakening

nytimes.com

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#121

It occurs to me that the thing that will probably limit advancements in AGI will be the availability of data to feed these systems. If you believe that Moore's law is only on life support and not totally dead, there will be more processing power to harness in the future. The number of researchers and investment are clearly growing very quickly. The models used can endlessly be improved. But on the other hand there ar…

It almost doesn't matter how smart the AGI is on it's own, if it can't participate in our social conversation and get it's information from the same sources humans do it's going to be stone dumb in practice. An individual human is far less intelligent than we generally give ourselves credit for: if it can't stand on the shoulders of our giants then it doesn't matter if it's ten times as tall as us individually.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#122
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we only looked at feed forward conv nets, then you'd be correct. However curriculum learning in environments like Universe and Labs are a critical step toward generality and planning based AIs. Solving catastrophic forgetting and increasing the time interval between behavior and reward are non-trivial steps. I'm not saying it's raining right now, but yeah I'm saying you should buy an umbrella.

Yeah... I don't see how anyone can do a survey of the current state of the art and come to the conclusion that we are definitively not approaching a general solution to AI. It's just not credible to claim that you know what can be done with all possible combinations of current ideas, much less those that will be had tomorrow.

We have always been approaching a general solution to AI (Provided one is possible).

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#123
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeat after me, "AI is not Magic." A super intelligent AI does not change the laws of physics or even get to predict the weather two weeks from now. Sure, they could learn to be a good hacker but the worlds best hacker can't get into air gaped systems. More importantly, flawless security trumps hacking. If there is nothing to exploit there is no way in, which means a lone AI is much more powerful than lot's of AI's…

The power of an AGI goes far beyond intelligence. It could generate millions of its own instances (possibly with variations) and hack on thousands of systems at the same time, actively adapting each one as needed. It could perform social engineering on a large number of people simultaneously and communicate in ultra-high bandwidth and protocols that most humans involved cannot follow. A likely potent form of gaining…

Suppose AI 1 uses that approach but Gmail has AI 2 acting as a spam filter. Suddenly phishing becomes much more difficult.

Further, spinning off other copies requires hardware to run them. If MS has an AI 3 go over windows source code it may be much harder to hack desktops.

Without authorial fiat a world of real world AI's may be much more stable and boring than you might think.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#124
The author gets it close to right when he talks about Google Maps as a form of AI, and the notion of raising the bar.

What's missing in this article as well as most reporting on AI is the differentiation between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness, otherwise known as individuality or self awareness.

To me there's a whole smoke and mirrors phenomenon going on in the AI topic, especially the idea of "emerging AI", and the supposed potential danger that poses, and it's tied to the tendency we have as humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, and to believe in supernatural effects.

That tendency allows the idea of artificial self awareness to always float behind the scenes in these conversations, and let's normal reporting on AI be magically conflated with a different topic.

It's important to realize that AI is nowhere near self awareness, or conscious, or "awake" and won't be no matter how far the field and implementation goes. No matter how many Turing Test they pass, intelligent machines will be no more conscious or self-aware than the Mechanical Turk!

That's because solving the problem of self-awareness, or consciousness is a different engineering challenge than solving problems of AI. Consciousness is a more complicated, and specialized a thing.

Were we to build an artificial self-awarene machine we would not expect it to pass a Turing Test. Instead we might expect different things of it and ask different questions to determine if it is self aware: can it adapt and survive without human help, ie can it trap and store energy and reproduce itself, and what purpose does it find for itself is what objective does it pursue ...

These are things machines are capable of as well, but as I said: it's a different engineering challenge than producing information that is organized to be sensible to human mind, which is the AI challenge, and the Turing Test.

That isn't to say machine learning isn't potentially dangerous, on the scale of atomic weapons or greater, especially in conjunction with automation, however the idea of an artificially emergent consciousness wth intelligence greater than our own is hogwash: we would do better to pay attention to our own emergent lack-of-intelligence systems and worry about them taking over first.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#125
post #90
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeat after me, "AI is not Magic." A super intelligent AI does not change the laws of physics or even get to predict the weather two weeks from now. Sure, they could learn to be a good hacker but the worlds best hacker can't get into air gaped systems. More importantly, flawless security trumps hacking. If there is nothing to exploit there is no way in, which means a lone AI is much more powerful than lot's of AI's…

There's a subtle argument here philosophically that I think is crucially tied to AI: determinism. If the world is deterministic, a sufficiently powered and advanced AI with enough data could actually predict the weather, not just for two weeks, but for years. This also enables many other things viewed as magic. This, of course, is incredibly far off. And I don't see a flaw in your point on flawless security. Though,…

I agree that "determinism" has much to do with the questions here, but to immediately pose a question about "the world" being deterministic might be putting the carriage before the horse.

I think the the other, perhaps more prescient point here, is about whether or not that kind of exponentially-learning AGI being discussed is even possible given that the substrate such things would be embedded in (hardware, software) which are [or appear to be?] deterministic. One assumes that that kind of learning implies learning about or aquiring capabilites which have not already been determined or specified by a human. At some level of abstraction, humans _must_ determine that system. It is possible to concieve of a machine that is non-deterministic in that way?

At what point does such a system actually leap beyond what has been specified by us? Does this imply a machine that not only rewrites itsel in softwate, but also remanufactures itself in hardware?

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#126
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power of an AGI goes far beyond intelligence. It could generate millions of its own instances (possibly with variations) and hack on thousands of systems at the same time, actively adapting each one as needed. It could perform social engineering on a large number of people simultaneously and communicate in ultra-high bandwidth and protocols that most humans involved cannot follow. A likely potent form of gaining…

Suppose AI 1 uses that approach but Gmail has AI 2 acting as a spam filter. Suddenly phishing becomes much more difficult. Further, spinning off other copies requires hardware to run them. If MS has an AI 3 go over windows source code it may be much harder to hack desktops. Without authorial fiat a world of real world AI's may be much more stable and boring than you might think.

Defense is generally much harder than offense, in most systems. The attacker needs to find only one loophole. The defender needs to protect all of them, including the fallible humans in the loop. This is one reason even large corporations often fail against a small group of hackers.

And in the real world, not everyone exclusively uses services and systems from Google and Microsoft, presumably two of the most competent technology providers. Plenty of people also use ad hoc services set up by internal teams.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#127
Lost in tranlation:

I not quite comfortable on how the Borges quote was translated. To show the difference, the new TRANSLATE version, translates again to spanish as:

Tu no eres lo que escribes, eres lo que has leido. A bit different from Borges original phrase meaning.

A sentence with a closer meaning (but a bad translation) would be:

One's way of being is not (caused) for what you have write, but for what you have read.

>Grinning, Pichai read aloud an awkward English version of the sentence that had been rendered by the old Translate system: “One is not what is for what he writes, but for what he has read.”

>To the right of that was a new A.I.-rendered version: “You are not what you write, but what you have read.”

edit: formating

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#128
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose AI 1 uses that approach but Gmail has AI 2 acting as a spam filter. Suddenly phishing becomes much more difficult. Further, spinning off other copies requires hardware to run them. If MS has an AI 3 go over windows source code it may be much harder to hack desktops. Without authorial fiat a world of real world AI's may be much more stable and boring than you might think.

Defense is generally much harder than offense, in most systems. The attacker needs to find only one loophole. The defender needs to protect all of them, including the fallible humans in the loop. This is one reason even large corporations often fail against a small group of hackers. And in the real world, not everyone exclusively uses services and systems from Google and Microsoft, presumably two of the most competen…

VISA, MasterCard, the US Federal Reserve, and IRS etc are a vast targets. However, while people regularly fake CC, Visa's internal systems seem safe. Suggesting defense is actually easier than offence when both sides are competent.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#129
post #8

Sundar seems very confused here. The idea that we should invent AGI to make "personal digital assistants" is like Hogwarts students inventing time machines so they can take two classes at once. I mean, yes, it would technically enable you to do that, but it doesn't matter because at that point you have way, way bigger problems. If a fleet of alien spaceships arrived in the sky over Manhattan tomorrow, our first react…

This is why I doubt if efforts like OpenAI will ultimately turn out to be beneficial or catastrophic. I understand their purpose of democratizing the power and benefits of AI technology broadly. However, if their platform can provide a critical component or developmental path to AGI in the future, the unrestrained distribution of the technology is similar to spreading the blueprint of nuclear warheads. It could resul…

OpenAI doesn't attempt to solve problems that even remotely resemble what you are describing. Hardly anyone claims to be working on AGI because AGI isn't a well defined problem. Its something cranks and the media tout because its excellent clickbait, along the lines of the singularity.

All the efforts of ML solve problems with a concrete input space and a concrete output space. This means they solve very discrete problems and are not generalizable, unless they have similar looking model inputs and the model has the same limited range of "moves" it can make.

Re: The Great A.I. Awakening

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I doubt if efforts like OpenAI will ultimately turn out to be beneficial or catastrophic. I understand their purpose of democratizing the power and benefits of AI technology broadly. However, if their platform can provide a critical component or developmental path to AGI in the future, the unrestrained distribution of the technology is similar to spreading the blueprint of nuclear warheads. It could resul…

OpenAI doesn't attempt to solve problems that even remotely resemble what you are describing. Hardly anyone claims to be working on AGI because AGI isn't a well defined problem. Its something cranks and the media tout because its excellent clickbait, along the lines of the singularity. All the efforts of ML solve problems with a concrete input space and a concrete output space. This means they solve very discrete pro…

I understand the limitations of current ML systems. That is why I mentioned 'a critical component'. Given that humans may use pattern recognition methods broadly similar in principle to deep neural nets, the conjecture is not without merit.
Post reply on HN