Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo Is Not AI

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#131

Post by unityByFreedom »

zodiac wrote: post #114
unityByFreedom wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

Then why not title the article "Alphago is not strong AI"?

Read the article. The title isn't a substitute for reading. It's short because your attention span is short.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#132

Post by s_kilk »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #101
vonnik wrote: post #48

The 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…

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

> It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI

Perhaps we need a new term to refer to "true" AI, preferably one that matches people's general notions of what an AI should be. "Synthetic Thought" maybe?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#133

Post by unityByFreedom »

psyc wrote: post #112
unityByFreedom wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

I have always found the idea that there's a hard line between strong and not-strong AI extremely naive. The whole thing is a long gradient of progress. Strong AI is going to creep up on most programmers like the proverbial boiling frog, and internet forums will be full of people denying its existence throughout that process.

> I have always found the idea that there's a hard line between strong and not-strong AI extremely naive

You probably haven't studied much or any AI. In my opinion, those who haven't researched a subject don't understand the details and are likely to make more inaccurate predictions than experts.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#134

Post by unityByFreedom »

s_kilk wrote: post #132
unityByFreedom wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

> It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI Perhaps we need a new term to refer to "true" AI, preferably one that matches people's general notions of what an AI should be. "Synthetic Thought" maybe?

People just need to read the article. The author describes what he meant in the first paragraph.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#135

Post by unityByFreedom »

yiyus wrote: post #127
unityByFreedom wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

It is easy to see if a title is clickbait or not. Just change it with some stupidly long title, such as "AlphaGo does not solve the problem of meaning, so it is not AGI" and ask yourself if this title would have generated a similar number of clicks. The title is as clickbait as it can get.

No, clickbait is "10 ways to find your spouse"

This is just a short title, and ITT people didn't read the first paragraph.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#136

Post by eutectic »

tazjin wrote: post #121
dwringer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say the challenge has been "solved" - the system may have only been able to win consistently because the programmers made adjustments and improvements to it between each game. Fitting its heuristics to a specific opponent might actually be overfitting unless it can consistently win against all challengers without being modified between rounds. [edited to clarify uncertainty about "why" it was able to win]

I believe that there was a sort of "learning freeze" for AlphaGo during the Lee Sedol games and there was no manual modification of its strategy either. If I recall correctly this was part of the commentary during the matches so I can't find a good source for it right now.

https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=2866

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#137

Post by yourapostasy »

vonnik wrote: post #48

The 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…

> ...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.

This is very interesting. In the human realm, there is the celebrated case history example of Helen Keller, who progressively developed her blindness and deafness over a period of years. She would arguably "pass" whatever tests that were administered for evaluating a strong AI.

However, walking backwards from that, towards case histories where patients were born deaf and blind, they also could pass those kinds of tests. But add more sensory disabilities, and it becomes murkier. Has anyone performed a detailed survey of medical histories? Is there a point beyond which lack of a specific set of senses leads to sapience incapacitation 100% of documented instances in humans? Could that be a promising lead to build a virtual environment that simulates a minimum threshold of senses?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#138

Post by matt4077 »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #101
vonnik wrote: post #48

The 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…

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…

If that were true, the article is useless – because nobody ever said that AlphaGo was 'strong' AI.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#139

Post by pertymcpert »

hartator wrote: post #113
vonnik wrote: post #48

The 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…

I think we can agree to disagree on the definition of intelligence. Intelligence implies a lot more than pattern recognition. Current state is just a better way to treat large quantity of data. The smart is to feed the computer the right way with good data, iterate through different ways the computer can guess a model from the data and finally interpret the final results. Computers doesn't know how to do that. Yet.

Not very up to date are you...
Post reply on HN