OK, so we have AIs that are capable of solving a very specific problem. My questions is, are AI's capable of being composed? In the sense that if I have 1000 AIs that are each experts at performing their domain specific tasks, can one or more AIs be built on top of them that specialize almost exclusively in delegation? i.e. they delegate intelligently depending on the task at hand. If that's possible, then we could in theory build a generalized AI, right?
AlphaGo Is Not AI
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#12This whole post can be (unintentionally) TL;DRed by a single Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect The phenomenon of people discounting significant advances as "not AI" is not new. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten old yet.
> The phenomenon of people discounting significant advances as "not AI" is not new. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten old yet.
It hasn't gotten old because people keep calling non-AI AI. I have so far refrained from correcting people because I see it like the word "hacker", which on Hacker News is widely understood in its correct meaning, but is commonly used to refer to computer criminals. I've given up long ago on correcting people to use the word "crackers" rather than "hackers". But since it has been brought up...
Artificial Intelligence refers to something that behaves intelligently and can adapt to new situations. I don't think human brains are magic or divine (I was surprised to learn this is not a universal opinion), so in that sense we're all "just a computation". In that sense the simplest pocket calculator is a thinking machine since it can take an almost infinite number of inputs and respond to it logically. But everyone with (artificial) intelligence understands that this is not what is meant by artificial intelligence.
The article that you link claims that every major advance is referred to as "just a computation", but I doubt that people will claim AI is "just a computation" once a computer learns to speak and can have a real conversation at the level of a 3 year old or something.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#13Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#14OK, so we have AIs that are capable of solving a very specific problem. My questions is, are AI's capable of being composed? In the sense that if I have 1000 AIs that are each experts at performing their domain specific tasks, can one or more AIs be built on top of them that specialize almost exclusively in delegation? i.e. they delegate intelligently depending on the task at hand. If that's possible, then we could i…
A simple decision tree could suffice. Is it a speech problem, is it an image problem? Is it a classification problem? Failing to find an acceptable answer, it does what seems closest or makes a random but plausible decision. This doesn't seem too far from what humans would be doing. Part of the problem is the meta-recognition of the problem and how to organize that within an actual system.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#15The piece really makes the only point worth making in the beginning: > What is AI and what is not AI is, to some extent, a matter of definition. It is by the general and widely used definition that AlphaGo is actually an AI. It just happens to solve one very specific problem very well, making it a weak AI. > Again, the rapid advances of deep learning and the recent success of this kind of AI at games like Go are very…
What's a "weak AI"? Does any algorithm that is able to adapt its behavior by learning qualify as "weak AI"? If so, why call it AI at all?
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
When some people say "AI" what they really mean is "Strong AI"
I'm some people and what I mean by AI is artificial intelligence. If needed I can be more precise with Weak / Strong / AGI or ASI.
So now you speak for everyone, and define their language usage independent of their intended connotations? Quite presumptuous.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#17One of the co-founders of DeepMind (Shane Legg) has provided the following definition of intelligence: "Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" in [1]. This definition has been pretty influential, and in the sense of this definition, AlphaGo is not AI. But it is a great step towards AI. [1] S. Legg, M. Hutter, Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intellige…
> Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments
A tardigrade achieves its goals in a wide range of environments; I don't think anyone would call it intelligent. I've known quite a few 15-year-old juvenile delinquents that I'm certain were able to achieve their goals in a much wider range of environments than Albert Einstein; were they all much more intelligent than Einstein?
> But it is a great step towards AI.
How do you know how big a step it is? None of our learning algorithms has yet to achieve even an insect's level of intelligence (which would be normally considered zero or close to it). How do you know we're even on the right path? I mean, I have no real reason to doubt that we'll get AI sometime in the future, but the belief -- certainty even -- that AI is imminent has been with us for about sixty years now.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#18Offtopic, but why do people design websites this [1] way? The content isn't even a fourth of the page width, then the rest of the page is filled with random articles, newsletter signup and follow buttons.
The topic sounds interesting, but the presentation is incredibly off-putting.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#19The piece really makes the only point worth making in the beginning: > What is AI and what is not AI is, to some extent, a matter of definition. It is by the general and widely used definition that AlphaGo is actually an AI. It just happens to solve one very specific problem very well, making it a weak AI. > Again, the rapid advances of deep learning and the recent success of this kind of AI at games like Go are very…
When some people say "AI" what they really mean is "Strong AI"
I think people think of it more along the lines of an artificial consciousness.
Which since consciousness is likely an emerging property of our own biological neural net and training data/weights, would likely have similar issues that humans have when exposed to bad data while growing up.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#20One of the co-founders of DeepMind (Shane Legg) has provided the following definition of intelligence: "Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" in [1]. This definition has been pretty influential, and in the sense of this definition, AlphaGo is not AI. But it is a great step towards AI. [1] S. Legg, M. Hutter, Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intellige…
This definition has the (unintentional?) effect of defining-away human intelligence. By the time a machine can demonstrate "enough" achievement in different domains to be called intelligent, the same high bar would disqualify any actual human being. If "a machine has to master backgammon, chess and poker, not just be a world champion at one of them" is a prerequisite for intelligence, then I don't think that any one human can demonstrate intelligence either.
Consider AI as a newly discovered species. If you were trying to discern if a previously unknown cetacean were intelligent, or if life discovered on a distant planet were intelligent, would you only say "intelligence discovered!" after it equaled-or-surpassed human performance on many or most kinds of thinking historically valued by humans? I wouldn't. I think that AI is already here and that the people waiting for artificial general intelligence will keep raising the bar and shifting the goalposts long after "boring" narrow AI has economically out-competed half the human population.