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

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#221

Post by simonh »

mannigfaltig wrote: post #181
CuriouslyC wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The main objective function in nature is very simple though: maximize the number of copies of your genes. Such an objective enforced in a resource-constrained multi-agent world (as suggested in the slides) could really lead to quite complex sub-objectives which may as well lead to general intelligence. For example, if each agent can process information and perform work, it follows that individuals that have better co…

There's no guarantee this will favour the development of intelligence though. To take examples from nature, flighted birds are so optimised for weight that they would never develop large, heavy enough craniums to support sentient brains. Many selective criteria may turn out to favour optimisation patterns that could actualy exclude general intelligence, or at least might effectively close off evolutionary paths that could lead to it.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#222

Post by goatlover »

LukaEn wrote: post #217
akvadrako wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, oh wise one, is the goal?

Nothing. Evoultion came about randomly, not by intent, so it has no goal.

But if the goal is to use evolution as model for generating AGI, then the problem is narrowing down all the surviving species to the ones that result in AGI, as opposed to a thousand other successful traits.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#223

Post by akvadrako »

LukaEn wrote: post #217
akvadrako wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, oh wise one, is the goal?

Nothing. Evoultion came about randomly, not by intent, so it has no goal.

That's pretty meaningless - in that case the word goal doesn't have a meaning because everything is just as random as evolution, which isn't very random but whatever.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#224

Post by aoeuasdf1 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #215
return0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not a case that happened

As a matter of fact, the mainstream AI community hasn't adopted probabilistic programming, but it does exist .

Feel free to link to any Kaggle blog posts showing victories using probabilistic programming.

Is your opinion independent of evidence?

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#225

Post by return0 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #215
return0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not a case that happened

As a matter of fact, the mainstream AI community hasn't adopted probabilistic programming, but it does exist .

you re going way off topic . this is about AI discoveries which in retrospect were found to have been discovered by neuroscience. you 're complaining that a potential theory (which is only partially supported by evidence) might one day hypothetically be found useful in AI.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#226

Post by jamez1 »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #190
trott wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're focusing too much on the implementation details and assuming that because they're different that it's not equivalent. The secret sauce here is that network topology (and threshold rules), not the implementation details, are largely what determine the functional properties of that network. Show an electrical engineer the circuit diagram of a 4 bit adder and they'll know it's function immediately. Artificial Neu…

I didn't see a maths major in your background but I'm surprised you seem to dance around how important back-propagation is, and how different it is from what you could find in nature.

The major advances are the implementation details, and I think many would consider the network topology research constrained not by our imagination but by our implementations.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#228

Post by hatsunearu »

p1esk wrote: post #214
hatsunearu wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh oh, not this again. There is so much woo about using subthreshold FETs to simulate neurons when we don't even know how neurons work. I've seen the work of J. Hasler in school and she seemed to be fond about simulating a type of neuron (winner-take-all) that is hard to train with backpropagation (vanishing gradients just by inspection) and has limited grounds on physical simulation of neurons. Do you have any other…

I think what people (including Hassler) care about is not so much simulating neurons, but the energy efficiency. Once we figure out AGI algorithms, we will want to build them in hardware. This justifies the continuing research in subthreshold FETs, because they could allow very efficient computation (not necessarily biologically realistic).

Of course, subthreshold FET circuits have incredibly low energy usage. And I do think that subthreshold analog neural nets have very high utility, but I am skeptical that they can be used to faithfully reproduce real neurons. I am however very confident they can be used to create real computing hardware that can efficiently do inference etc.

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#229

Post by red75prime »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #207
mirimir wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for biological organisms, it's all about reproductive success. I mean, what exits today reflects what managed to reproduce, and how well. Overall, that has created lots of complexity. But that's just because there are so many niches and ways to be successful in them. What you say about people reflects cooperative behavior that drives reproductive success for shared gene complexes.

It took nature four billion years to invent humans, who are actually - if we're honest - pretty terrible as an example of workable AGI. In fact what nature invented was a persistent colony organism with external memory. Wild solo humans are only a little smarter than wolves individually, but being able to share and externalise invention and learning created a massive advantage. Humans are successful because although…

> until there's a persistent, transferable, abstracted model [...]

It can be compressed to "until AIs can talk".

Re: Where will artificial general intelligence come from?

#230

Post by posterboy »

LukaEn wrote: post #217
akvadrako wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, oh wise one, is the goal?

Nothing. Evoultion came about randomly, not by intent, so it has no goal.

Reduction of entropy. Which seems quite the opposite of growth. However effectively, say energy per volume, it allows for growth.
Post reply on HN