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

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#141

Post by paradite »

Regarding the definition of AI, I find lecture notes for intro to AI courses in various university [1] very useful:

> Views of AI fall into four categories:

> Thinking humanly - Cognitive Modeling

> Thinking rationally - “Laws of Thought”

> Acting humanly - Turing Test

> Acting rationally - Rational Agent

> The textbook advocates "acting rationally"

Indeed most of the things we see today in AI community is solving the problem of "acting rationally" whereas the other categories have their respective fields (Cognitive Science, Cognitive Neuroscience, Philosophy) that are no longer closely related to computer science.

[1] http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~hzhang/c145/notes/m1-intro-6p....

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#142

Post by 000000000000000 »

yourapostasy wrote: post #137
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 administ…

Also, AIs are not constrained by senses shared with humans. Our information passing is mediated by few inputs — a stream of light as a matrix within a very narrow range of possible spectra; a stream of air pressure decoded into frequency series; touch etc. AIs could have many more modes of input and output.

Also… it seems weird to consider having “human” inputs embodied but having direct access to information stored elsewhere as not — surely there’s disk platters, SSDs and other devices existing in the real world, no?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#143

Post by 000000000000000 »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #135
yiyus wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you read the first paragraph, it mentions first AI then AGI, and does not deny that the latter is a subset of the former. In the second paragraph it even mentions that today’s AI is not AGI.

So it uses a strong claim — i.e. AlphaGo is not AI — then subsequently changes it to a smaller claim — AlphaGo is not AGI.

Reading the entire article does not change the fact that this can be seen as a technique to attract readers. Claim rare X; change X to be a subset of Y; then claim it was really new X all along. Moving the goal post.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#144

Post by benibela »

lukedoolittle wrote: post #93
taneq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait, next they'll discover the trolley problem and claim that self-driving vehicles will have to be philosophers.

Tis already happening. http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-already-dec...

And this will be the outcome: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#145

Post by ralfd »

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…

> Then he makes the point that this requires embodiment, that they have a physical body in space

He makes even a stronger curious claim: That "This realization is often called the “embodiment problem” and most researchers in AI now agree that intelligence and embodiment are tightly coupled issues."

That makes it sound like it is a consensus between researchers, that strong AI requires a robotic body. Which I doubt.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#146

Post by omginternets »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #135
yiyus wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a clear and meaningful difference between "not AI" and "not strong AI".

With respect, you are being pedantic.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#147

Post by [deleted] »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #135
yiyus wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#148

Post by legolas2412 »

pron wrote: post #37
habitue wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. We call it AI because we need a name for this kind of adaptive algorithm, even if it isn't anything close to strong AI

There are JIT compilers, and even sorting algorithms that are adaptive. Are they AI too? What's wrong with the name "statistical learning" (as that's the flavor du jour of so called AI anyway)?

I think the word "adaptive" is meant to mean "general" learning that can be applied to more behavior.

AlphaGo was trained for blackgammon, could it be given chess and learn it just as well? The answer is no.

If I had to personally define AI, I would give a machine input to limbs of robot, and output of cameras and microphones (eyes and ears). And I would see if given sufficient years, can it learn language and conversation and ability to use robotic body for sports.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#149

Post by 7Z7 »

The_suffocated wrote: post #98
CJefferson wrote: post #28

Earlier 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…

Agree. Feng-hsiung Hsu, the chief designer of Deep Blue, the chess machine that beat Kasparov, once gave a talk at my university. I didn't go to the talk, but in the abstract, he stated clearly that he didn't think Deep Blue is AI -- it's just a search algorithm. I don't understand why so many commenters here are so furious about the author's claim that AlphaGo is not AI. What qualifies as AI is really up to definiti…

>I don't understand why so many commenters here are so furious about the author's claim that AlphaGo is not AI.

I don't think they really are. I think they are annoyed because nobody (who knows the difference) ever claimed that AlphaGo was strong/true/general AI) - and the article feels like it's swatting at strawmen.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#150

Post by yourapostasy »

000000000000000 wrote: post #142
yourapostasy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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 administ…

Also, AIs are not constrained by senses shared with humans. Our information passing is mediated by few inputs — a stream of light as a matrix within a very narrow range of possible spectra; a stream of air pressure decoded into frequency series; touch etc. AIs could have many more modes of input and output. Also… it seems weird to consider having “human” inputs embodied but having direct access to information stored…

Absolutely correct, more senses are definitely available to an AGI. In the context of building an AGI that possesses "like a human" implied or directly in the evaluation criteria, and the thesis that embodiment of senses is a prerequisite to fulfilling that criteria, we don't know whether or not more senses than human might thwart the development of the first AGI. We currently believe that more senses than "normal" tends to lead to neuro-atypical development like autism, so there is some evidence for caution against tossing in all the inputs we can imagine, based upon current thinking (I wonder if that thinking is based upon empirical fMRI scans). We do have the corpus of data built up by humans however, that says "no known cases in medical history of sapience failing to develop with this minimal set of senses".

My cursory search says hearing and sight are not necessary. Leaving us with smell, taste, and touch. Smell and taste are closely interlinked, so there is a possibility that a simulated smell-taste and touch are all that is required to "bootstrap" the first AGI, so to speak.

Your point recalls to mind the scene in Battlestar Galactica (the reboot) where Cavil fulminates "I don't want to be human". [1] I suspect once we boostrap the first AGI, you are absolutely correct, we will rapidly add more senses to the AGI's repertoire. But we only have one data point for a template to build AGI off of, ourselves, so I also suspect the first AGI will somewhat resemble us. If so, and if the embodiment principle is one of the right routes to take, then it makes sense to me to simulate what we empirically determine as the minimum sense set, and then expand from there. Walk before we run, so to speak.

It wouldn't hurt for someone investigating the embodiment principle to build for as many senses as they can envision, though. Many eyes, and all that, for attacking the problem space. I'm just expressing an uninformed gut feeling here, as I am not in the AI research space.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM3CptVZDYU

Post reply on HN