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

Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 252 posts

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#151

Post by CuriouslyC »

karpathy wrote: post #139

I gave this talk a while ago to a small group of attendees. It was not recorded (I saw some ask below). It's based on a document I wrote a while ago called "You suck at writing AI" (never published). The basic argument was that people are comically inadequate at writing complex code. You can't write the code to detect a cat in an image and the correct thing to do is to give up, write down an objective that measures t…

Plot twist: figuring out that objective function may prove as intractable as the original problem! We'll need an objective function writing objective function, and then it's turtles all the way down.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#152

Post by serf »

mythrwy wrote: post #67
rdlecler1 wrote: post #29

Background: I did AI and Philosophy of Mind in undergrad, an MSc focused on ALife, then a PhD at Yale under a Macarthur Fellow who developed the theoretical framework for the 'evolution of Evolvability' where I worked on computational evolutionary biology. I can say we're not going to blindly brute force our way forward, but instead we'll need to reverse engineer nature's core algorithms to generate hard AI. Every ti…

Background: Some guy on the Internet with an unrelated Bachelors degree he didn't study that hard for and has picked up a little Python and Javascript somewhere along the way. I know of no biological forms that have evolved wheels. But wheels have turned out to be a hell of a lot faster than fins or legs. I see no reason "intelligence" has to follow the pathways or limitations of biology or neurology at all. Although…

>I know of no biological forms that have evolved wheels.

Silly to reduce all rotary motion to wheels.

Less complex to roll as a ball -- the benefit of rotary motion without facilitating the additional complexity of adding a steering mechanism.

> But wheels have turned out to be a hell of a lot faster than fins or legs.

Nature doesn't somehow cares about hyper-optimizing for a single characteristic like 'speed', rather the characteristics arise from individual (species) successes between genetics lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rolling_animals

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#153

Post by cgmg »

nurettin wrote: post #100
jandrewrogers wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pessimism over simulating a human brain is two-fold. First, the human brain is built on a computational substrate that is completely and utterly unlike silicon. It is extremely inefficient to effect computation by simulating a computing model on silicon that is almost pathological for silicon to express. The abstract computational model of the human brain necessarily has an equivalent direct expression in computi…

>> Second, and related, the abstract mathematical nature of intelligence is well-understood and the human brain must be an expression of that. That's nice, but whenever I researched, I only got vague explanations involving recursion and unicorns.

Hutter, Schmidhuber, et al. have done some very interesting work on this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#154

Post by eb3c90 »

karpathy wrote: post #139

I gave this talk a while ago to a small group of attendees. It was not recorded (I saw some ask below). It's based on a document I wrote a while ago called "You suck at writing AI" (never published). The basic argument was that people are comically inadequate at writing complex code. You can't write the code to detect a cat in an image and the correct thing to do is to give up, write down an objective that measures t…

I'd be interested in what you think of my approach elsewhere in the replies.

In some ways it is a search through program space. But then I think we as intelligences do a guided search through program space as we develop. It seems important to use what information you can to guide you e.g. culture and copying other people who have already been navigating the space of programs to be.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#155

Post by ufmace »

ghaff wrote: post #52
return0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> neuroscientist say: "why didn't you talk to us 15 years ago? We could have told you that!". Interested to hear about these. I can honestly not remember any.

There's been this tension over whether achieving apparent human levels of artificial intelligence requires thinking like and following processes associated with human learning and intelligence pretty much forever. Today, computational capability and data have gotten us to a place where there's been a big step forward while largely ignoring how it relates to human-level thought. (After all, we got powered flight by la…

From what I've read, the Wright brother's main innovation was that 3-axis control was needed to maintain flight, which they also copied from birds.

Which means that copying birds is fine, you just have to know what parts to copy (mechanisms to control direction in all 3 axes) and which to ignore (flapping wings isn't practical given the power sources and construction materials we have, but soaring on stationary wings is a good place to start).

Which in turn means that saying "Just copy nature, they've been doing this for 1bn years" or "don't bother copying nature, we need different stuff" both aren't very useful.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#157

Post by serf »

MarkMc wrote: post #93
mythrwy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Background: Some guy on the Internet with an unrelated Bachelors degree he didn't study that hard for and has picked up a little Python and Javascript somewhere along the way. I know of no biological forms that have evolved wheels. But wheels have turned out to be a hell of a lot faster than fins or legs. I see no reason "intelligence" has to follow the pathways or limitations of biology or neurology at all. Although…

I would also point to heavier-than-air flight. For thousands of years people tried to mimic flapping wings of birds, but in the end it was the unnatural propellor and fixed wing design that gave us flight.

Fixed-wing flight isn't unknown to the natural world.[0]

Flagella use propeller motion for propulsion.[1]

Lots of animals use jets.[2]

I'd consider the combustion engine to be the most novel 'human' design with regards to aircraft propulsion -- or the way we achieve jet propulsion; that's pretty unique.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_soaring_birds

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_propulsion

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#158

Post by russdill »

karpathy wrote: post #139

I gave this talk a while ago to a small group of attendees. It was not recorded (I saw some ask below). It's based on a document I wrote a while ago called "You suck at writing AI" (never published). The basic argument was that people are comically inadequate at writing complex code. You can't write the code to detect a cat in an image and the correct thing to do is to give up, write down an objective that measures t…

Is there a video of your giving the talk? Or at least audio?

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#159

Post by mycat »

p1esk wrote: post #148
karpathy wrote: post #139

I gave this talk a while ago to a small group of attendees. It was not recorded (I saw some ask below). It's based on a document I wrote a while ago called "You suck at writing AI" (never published). The basic argument was that people are comically inadequate at writing complex code. You can't write the code to detect a cat in an image and the correct thing to do is to give up, write down an objective that measures t…

It's unfortunate that AI researchers pay so little attention to the brain (a single slide in your talk). We need more ML people evaluating ideas from neuroscience or from such initiatives as Numenta or Spaun.

Remeber Koniku? (http://koniku.io/) Biology and Biotech are different beasts.

Saw their Ted talk, looks promising, but seems they delayed a lot.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#160

Post by paganel »

mythrwy wrote: post #67
rdlecler1 wrote: post #29

Background: I did AI and Philosophy of Mind in undergrad, an MSc focused on ALife, then a PhD at Yale under a Macarthur Fellow who developed the theoretical framework for the 'evolution of Evolvability' where I worked on computational evolutionary biology. I can say we're not going to blindly brute force our way forward, but instead we'll need to reverse engineer nature's core algorithms to generate hard AI. Every ti…

Background: Some guy on the Internet with an unrelated Bachelors degree he didn't study that hard for and has picked up a little Python and Javascript somewhere along the way. I know of no biological forms that have evolved wheels. But wheels have turned out to be a hell of a lot faster than fins or legs. I see no reason "intelligence" has to follow the pathways or limitations of biology or neurology at all. Although…

It's not about building better tools (i.e. the "artificial" wheels vs. nature's wings and legs), it's about building a thing that would be just like us, humans: intelligent and especially a thing that has feelings.

I know that the "feelings" part is most of the times neglected in these types of presentations (you cannot put them into any abstract representation, like you can draw a wheel using geometry), but it's what most of us, people who are not in this field, expect from AIG. Great Science Fiction works (novels, movies) have talked about this subject (AI and human feelings) long enough, but it somehow never makes it into academic presentations.

Just think for a second of the self-driving cars problem. Someone on HN (or maybe reddit) explained a couple of days ago that even if we 'd manage to devise such a system that would be considerably better compared to humans we'd still not be ok with these machines killing us on the roads. Now, imagine these machines possessing the feeling of "guilt", or of "compassion", I'm pretty sure that the percentage of humans that would become ok with some AIG driving our cars for us will rise dramatically (I know I would stand on the AIG's side). We don't mind the fact that machines kill us, accidents happen, we mind that machines kill us and they don't "realize" what they've done and they don't support the consequences.

Re-reading my comment I feel like it sounds a little pop-sciency, didn't mean it to go into that direction, it's just my interpretation on how I think things are. I for myself would love, really love, if we'd somehow "make" an AIG capable of telling genuine, funny jokes.

Post reply on HN