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

Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#131

Post by tehramz »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #129

What we lack is an AI equivalent of a theory of aerodynamics. At the moment we're just brute forcing random solution when we have perfectly good systems we should be trying to reverse engineer: biological brains. This will likely require genetic & evutionary algorithms, a developmental genotype-phenotype mapping, and competitive ecological systems for open ended evolution. Right now we have back propogration which is…

I've never understood this about "AI". Why do we think that our brains or animal brains are the most effective models for intelligence? Just because we evolved to have a brain that works a certain way doesn't mean it's the most efficient or even efficient at all. Of course, I don't have much experience with AI other than what I've read.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#132

Post by tehramz »

bryananderson wrote: post #86

At first glance, the obvious solution seems to be to create intelligence the same way nature did: some sort of evolution. Some sort of algorithm where multiple "networks" mutate and reproduce in some way, in response to some fitness function. Mutations that make a network more fit result in an increased reproductive rate, while other mutations decrease that rate. Evolutionary algorithms have been around for a while b…

What makes you think that our brains or intelligence is the most efficient or most effective? We happened to evolved a brain that allowed us to think on what we consider sophisticated. This doesn't mean that it's a great system. We also evolved to have a spine, which is a terrible design. There's a ton of other examples of evolution designing things that are terrible and ineffective, but get the job done. Is that what we're striving for?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#133

Post by tehramz »

I think it's silly to think that modeling AI after how a brain works is silly. We happened to develop the brain we have over many random iterations over billions of years. I don't understand why we think the human brain is the optimal model or method for intelligence. I guess it gives us something we kinda sorta understand to use as an example, but it seems silly to think our brain and how it works is a good model.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#134

Post by uoaei »

felippee wrote: post #102
eanzenberg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things you described can be explained by having a pre-trained model built from DNA. Babies aren't a blank slate. Why would you even think they are? Do you think a baby learns to breath from blank-slate intelligence?

If what you are saying was true, then why all these skills require time to develop? If they are pre-programmed in the DNA, why are they not enabled on the day of birth? Clearly from evolutionary point of view an infant that is already able to walk and perceive depth would have vastly superior chances of survival? Why all the brain development, and much enhanced plasticity in the early stage of development? Why do neu…

I hope it's clear that the answer lies somewhere between these two extremes. Most likely, there are instilled a number of prototypical reflexes that quickly make available the "right" decision for a given situation. Consider it that we don't know the objective function per se, but that we start in a place and with a gradient vector already pointed in such a way that we quickly reach the optimal location in action space with relatively few exploratory trials.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#135

Post by uoaei »

tehramz wrote: post #132
bryananderson wrote: post #86

At first glance, the obvious solution seems to be to create intelligence the same way nature did: some sort of evolution. Some sort of algorithm where multiple "networks" mutate and reproduce in some way, in response to some fitness function. Mutations that make a network more fit result in an increased reproductive rate, while other mutations decrease that rate. Evolutionary algorithms have been around for a while b…

What makes you think that our brains or intelligence is the most efficient or most effective? We happened to evolved a brain that allowed us to think on what we consider sophisticated. This doesn't mean that it's a great system. We also evolved to have a spine, which is a terrible design. There's a ton of other examples of evolution designing things that are terrible and ineffective, but get the job done. Is that wha…

Why pooh-pooh ideas if you're not sure either? Let's explore, combine, and mutate the iterations that each party thinks may be successful.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#136

Post by uoaei »

tehramz wrote: post #131
rdlecler1 wrote: post #129

What we lack is an AI equivalent of a theory of aerodynamics. At the moment we're just brute forcing random solution when we have perfectly good systems we should be trying to reverse engineer: biological brains. This will likely require genetic & evutionary algorithms, a developmental genotype-phenotype mapping, and competitive ecological systems for open ended evolution. Right now we have back propogration which is…

I've never understood this about "AI". Why do we think that our brains or animal brains are the most effective models for intelligence? Just because we evolved to have a brain that works a certain way doesn't mean it's the most efficient or even efficient at all. Of course, I don't have much experience with AI other than what I've read.

Do you have much experience with brains? Are you aware of the ratio of computational capacity to energy requirements that is as yet unmatched in power?

Not to mention that, as a system, the brain is highly efficient in reusing modular structures for increasingly complex tasks.

I have a feeling when people mention "AI modelled after a brain" they consider a simplification of neuronal dynamics to be how to achieve that. But that is a very naïve way to do it. Looking at it from the system level is the more fruitful approach, IMHO.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#137

Post by uoaei »

bluetwo wrote: post #24

I agree with the article. Throwing more cycles at a problem using the existing models isn't that answer. Better, more efficient models are needed. And yes, I'm working toward that goal.

Can you share something about your work? Or how I may get involved?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#138

Post by argonaut »

kobeya wrote: post #73
52-6F-62 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think he was speaking explicitly about AGI. To me it didn't sound like they were leaving the applied problems he has worked on. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models and he's suggesting here that rather than continue with the models that have had success up to this point, it would be more w…

> Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but so far there haven't been any major successes in un-supervised learning models Word2vec, a variant of which is Transform, Google's new machine translation framework which beats the pants off every other approach, to name one. The system it is replacing is also unsupervised.

Transformer is heavily reliant on supervised learning. Not sure where you're getting that from.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#139

Post by fnl »

Animats wrote: post #45

Machine learning may be nearing its ceiling. The history of AI goes in cycles. Someone has a good idea which solves some problems, followed by "strong AI Real Soon Now" enthusiasm, followed by that idea hitting its ceiling. AI has been through search, backtracking, the General Problem Solver, hill-climbing, and expert systems. Each was overhyped at the time, and each hit its ceiling. The big difference this time is t…

That implies we have hit or at least know the exact capacity ceiling for, in particular, recurrent/dynamic networks (I do agree that with static networks it seems more clear cut). While it will not be general AI, I'd assume, things like the neutral Turing machine, pointer networks, and many other open research areas leave room to speculate that we have not yet "found" that ceiling.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#140

Post by bonzini »

uoaei wrote: post #134
felippee wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you are saying was true, then why all these skills require time to develop? If they are pre-programmed in the DNA, why are they not enabled on the day of birth? Clearly from evolutionary point of view an infant that is already able to walk and perceive depth would have vastly superior chances of survival? Why all the brain development, and much enhanced plasticity in the early stage of development? Why do neu…

I hope it's clear that the answer lies somewhere between these two extremes. Most likely, there are instilled a number of prototypical reflexes that quickly make available the "right" decision for a given situation. Consider it that we don't know the objective function per se, but that we start in a place and with a gradient vector already pointed in such a way that we quickly reach the optimal location in action spa…

Yes, the walking movement is one of a newborn's 9 primitive reflexes. [1] However, developing the fine control skills required to balance while walking is a skill that babies learn, and it takes a long time to do so.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflexes

Post reply on HN