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

171–180 of 252 posts

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#171

Post by p1esk »

trott wrote: post #115
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…

> Every time a major advance is made in AI the computational neuroscientist say: "why didn't you talk to us 15 years ago? We could have told you that!". I'm not sure which advances you are talking about, but the modern successes of Deep Learning are primarily due to backpropagation and convolution. Neither of the two is considered to be biologically plausible. Some people are actively trying to come up with alternati…

Actually convnets were inspired by Fukushima's Neocognitron, which was itself inspired by visual cortex.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#175

Post by [deleted] »

russdill wrote: post #158
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?

[deleted]

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#176

Post by idlewords »

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…

Would you be willing to write this talk out in longer form? I realize it's a lot of work, but the slides are fantastic and even an intermediate textual version that just fills in some of the explanatory gaps would be fascinating.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#177

Post by fourfaces »

I know where it will not come from. It will not come from the mainstream AI community. They are married to and madly in love with deep learning. Deep learning, the supervised kind, is a red herring.

AGI will require a revolutionary breakthrough, most likely from a maverick, probably a lone wolf rebel, who is used to thinking outside the box.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#178

Post by trott »

p1esk wrote: post #171
trott wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time a major advance is made in AI the computational neuroscientist say: "why didn't you talk to us 15 years ago? We could have told you that!". I'm not sure which advances you are talking about, but the modern successes of Deep Learning are primarily due to backpropagation and convolution. Neither of the two is considered to be biologically plausible. Some people are actively trying to come up with alternati…

Actually convnets were inspired by Fukushima's Neocognitron, which was itself inspired by visual cortex.

> Actually convnets were inspired by Fukushima's Neocognitron, which was itself inspired by visual cortex.

That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

ConvNets require the synchronization of weights between neurons, which is not considered to be biologically plausible. Some aspects of the architecture (the receptive fields, in this case) may well be plausible, with the complete architecture still implausible.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#179

Post by jcranmer »

reasonattlm wrote: post #55
klochner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[X] Open Source Tools [ ] Massive Data Sets [ ] $Millions in Computing Resources I'd put it roughly on par with finding a general cure for cancer. While unlikely, quite amazing that the cure for one of the largest causes of death could be solved 3 doors down with lab supplies from amazon and a handful of mice.

There is a general cure for cancer. Look up interdiction of telomere lengthening. Different groups are looking into how to sabotage telomerase and ALT mechanisms. If both can be achieved, then any cancer can be shut down. Those are the only ways to lengthen telomeres, and cancers cannot live without them. Finding an ALT drug candidate is as simple as running assays on the drug libraries; the assay hasn't existed for…

You're vastly underestimating the difficulty in curing cancer. It is very easy to kill cancer cells. The problem is that we want to target cancer cells and only cancer cells. There have been several attempts to kill cancer cells by withholding key ingredients in necessary metabolic pathways, only to find that the cancer cells do a better job of scavenging those than the non-cancer cells.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#180

Post by unclebucknasty »

ufmace wrote: post #155
ghaff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Which means that copying birds is fine, you just have to know what parts to copy

The analogy between acheiving AGI and achieving flight is invalid on its face and yields no useful information. Nothing can be drawn from the latter about the former.

Flight is mechanical. AGI is not. However, until now, ML and other AI techniques have focused largely on mechanics (stuffing data into an algorithm), which is why such analogies with nature are tempting. But, that approach won't suffice for AGI.

The breakthrough for AGI will come through an approach that backs away from brute force and attacks the problem from a meta-perspective; building on the core blocks of what intelligence is. The approach will be relatively simple, once the core foundation of the integrative learning process is understood, which is the much more difficult task. Execution will then involve establishing a base case that implements, not learning, but the capacity to learn. This will then be replicated across generations, compounding exponentially until what we recognize as AGI emerges.

As well, the required computing power is likely to be significantly less than is commonly believed. This raw brute-force ML-style approach again misleads us here.

Post reply on HN