In a hundred years, google is going to be arguing with Facebook about whether humans are intelligent.
AlphaGo Is Not AI
41–50 of 172 posts
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#42This 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 cor…
like the word "hacker", which on Hacker News is widely understood in its correct meaning
You'd be surprised. Here's part of just such a conversation for a couple of years ago; I've always thought "hacker" without qualifiers meant "person who can code"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9790316
Other terms commonly used here with wildly different meanings being applied include "liberal", "feminism" and "capitalism". Screaming matches abound... :)
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#43I don't understand the critics this article receive here. It makes a very good counterpoint to all the hype the AI field is living at the moment, letting people from the general audience believe that algorithms will replace humans quite soon. You may think it doesn't matter, but we've candidates to the presidential elections here in france building economical programs assuming "robots will do everything soon, so let'…
If the mind is that what a physical brain does, then a physical brain can in principle be simulated - by crunching numbers - to produce a mind (some have claimed that there must be more to it than that, but none have come up with a generally-accepted justification for their position.)
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#44this is one of those clickbaiting articles:
- taylor swift is not really an artist
- paulo coehlo is not really a writer
- javascript is not really programming
- Trump is not really human
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#45The 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…
No, that is totally ignoring the point of the article due to it's semantics.
The point the article makes is that a general intelligence (or however you wanna call something that has intelligent function like a human) is not attained by AlphaGo. It might help but it is only part of the puzzle. There is work needed in other directions.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#46This is a pointless argument, we all know AI is all about thought. If a person can't move does he still have intelligence?
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#47This 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.
If there's an "AI effect" surely its inverse also exists; it seems to me that every time there is a [relatively] major advancement, a similar chorus of supporters pop up to tell us how we're so close to solving every AI problem imaginable. In recent memory there's Google's NMT, which had people effectively saying it's "solved" translation, but when I got to actually feed something into it, as a competent speaker of J…
I completely agree. Deep learning has been doing this most recently and I'd argue that the very existence of AI winters is really just deflated expectations that always were overly ambitious.
My own way to look at AI winters is as triumph of Scruffy pragmatism over Neat delusions. Intelligence is unimaginably complicated, there is no reason to believe that silver bullet algorithms even exist, let alone the probability that the latest fad is it.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#48The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think.
The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of other things everyone knows that don't deserve to be in the news.
Jean-Christophe Baillie wrote this piece. He has done some work in AI and computer vision, and he had the opportunity here to write a piece that reflected that expertise. Instead he made a rather facile point that is similar to saying "Graffiti isn't art." That argument won't lead anywhere interesting.
He rehashes the Chomsky-ian argument about meaning. That AI's won't understand meaning until they can connect representations to the world. Then he makes the point that this requires embodiment, that they have a physical body in space through which they connect to the world. I don't believe either of these are necessary requirements for AI.
An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting close to strong AI. It doesn't really matter whether the machine constructs meaning to itself or not. It doesn't have to be humanlike to be strong. Secondly, AIs can train perfectly well in virtual environments. They don't have to be embodied as robots to be considered strong. We can model the world with enough complexity to give AIs problems that, if solved, might define them as strong.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#49One 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…
I think the quote does a great job at explaining why a lot of people have been critical of labeling the recent breakthroughs in Machine learning as real intelligence. Most people define intelligence in comparison to humans. Things like being the best GO player in the world are so specialized that they don't seem very human at all.
Most people will not be impressed by a machine that can master backgammon, chess and poker, despite it being a great technical feat. They would be impressed by one that can successfully teach a 5th grade math class, even though there are hundreds of thousands of people who can do this.
This would require more than teaching the kids math, but also how to deal with the kid who loses a parent during the school year. How to deal with bullying in the class, with misbehaving students. None of it is "specialized knowledge" like playing GO. And we are nowhere even remotely close to this.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as an AI researcher, almost nothing is "AI" research. In practice i feel most current AI research falls into two categories: * Fuzzy problems -- image, sound and free text recognition. Where there is no real "true answer". * Problems too hard to solve in a reasonable time without heuristics -- SAT, scheduling, etc. In practice NP-hard problems and further up the complexity heirachy -- AlphaGo goes here. Once…
is there any research into making a "generic" AI that can solve any problem without the researcher first having to know what that problem is? i.e., human style learning.
Certainly some very clever people are trying it, and have been since the 60s at least, but as far as i am aware the progress is limited (but it is not my area of expertise).
I think the main problem is you end up needing a language to describe the problem, and that ends up limiting the problems that can be solved, or you have to explain so carefully what the problem is it feels like cheating.