AI learns to write its own code by stealing from other programs

Post by unprepare » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 8:13 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #140

unprepare wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero reason to believe it will not. look i too can make baseless assertions.

I don't need to prove a negative. It seems inevitable that on some time scale AGI will be achieved if we don't commit species suicide or bomb ourselves back to the stone age. It doesn't follow that AI less capable than AGI can produce non trivial software guided by non programmers. This requires proof because it has never been done in human history and thus without any examples it requires if not proof a coherent arg…

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #141

michaelmrose wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't need to prove a negative. It seems inevitable that on some time scale AGI will be achieved if we don't commit species suicide or bomb ourselves back to the stone age. It doesn't follow that AI less capable than AGI can produce non trivial software guided by non programmers. This requires proof because it has never been done in human history and thus without any examples it requires if not proof a coherent arg…

can you quote me saying non-programmers would be making software? have you read my comments here? Im talking about tools that enable a single developer to do the work of a great many developers, thus lowering the demand for developers in the marketplace over time. you are talking about non programmers writing software(no clue where you got that from at all?) and you even admit that this looks like a great tool to ena…

Post by argonaut » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 10:15 PM UTC

317070 wrote: post #33

argonaut wrote: post #14

A nuance that is underappreciated by a lot of people / the media is the degree to which any of the AI generates X models (faces, drawings, fills in photos, increases sharpness, etc.) simply copy and paste and interpolate from the training set. Unlike general supervised learning problems, for many of the deep learning "generative" models that get posted to HN regularly, there is no objective "test set" to measure gene…

Actually, there is a formal method to evaluate generative models. All you need is a validation set. Then you need to find what the odds are that the model would have generated your validation set. That probability is the one you want to maximize [0]. In order to be able to calculate or estimate this probability, you need to make some amendments to your model architecture. But for instance PixelCNN's know the probabil…

Post by Broken_Hippo » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 11:15 PM UTC

kleiba wrote: post #45

“It could allow non-coders to simply describe an idea for a program and let the system build it” This is not a new thought. The problem with it, however, is that such a description would have to be very precise or else leave room for different interpretations which in turn could lead to very different programs being generated. In particular, as programmers know, it's often the edge cases that pose the main difficulty…

Post by flukus » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #19

I thought this would take longer. "Developer" will stick around as a job for people who need new and unique things, or for apps that need speed, but if your job is making forms to take in data, putting it in a database, performing some sort of analysis on it, and then printing a report to the screen then you should really starting learning something else, because those jobs will not exist in 10 years.