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

Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#51

Post by lazyman75 »

skohan wrote: post #32

Deep learning has produced a lot of interesting results over the past few years, but we're still miles away from anything that even approximates human intelligence. When I hear someone like Elon Musk say something like "Autonomous vehicles can drive without Lidar because humans can drive without Lidar" it makes me cringe. The human brain is unimaginably complex. Even if we created a neural network on the order of the…

To really grasp how insanely complex the brain is, I recommend videos about "connectomics" by Jeff Lichtman from Harvard. Real eye opener.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#52

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

sgt101 wrote: post #35
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, going by formal language theory, FOL is equivalent to a universal Turing machine, which is probably also the full expressive power of human language. Therefore, everything that can be said in human language should in principle be possible to say in FOL. I don't think this is controversial. Notice again that I don't think this is feasible in practice. At least not with hand-crafted FOL expressions and certainly…

Yeah but humans don't have a single consistent logical model for all reasoning - i believe that all my models can be in fol, but i don't believe that they can be unified in fol

Oh, I'm not saying anything about how humans think, or model the world. FOL is a formal language. It can express the same things that natural language can express and you can do reasoning in it (actually- let's say "inference" because reasoning is a bit of a loaded term), but I make no claim that it's how humans really think.

I mean, I don't believe that is true any more that I believe calculus, or linear algebra are the way we think. Those are just formal systems that we can use to get various results about the world- but is that how we really think inside our heads? I kind of doubt it.

I'm just talking about the expressive power of first-order predicate calculus here, not about whether it's a good model for human intelligence.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#53

Post by viewtransform »

FrozenVoid wrote: post #4

Lets rename "Deep learning" to "Statistical Compression". Its essentially distilled data from a dataset, limited by size of the neural network. There isn't anything "deep" there, the goal of NN is always towards overfitting the data.

"Dimension reduction" is what I would call it. Going from R^n to R^m n>m using parameterized non-linear high dimensional mappings.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#55

Post by tim333 »

gaius wrote: post #47
FrozenVoid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can’t be readily explained It works "pretty well" in well-defined complete-information domains like Go. The training in that case is actually about improving the next dataset from which higher-quality patterns are extracted. 1.We have a NN that doesn't know how to play and makes random moves. 2.Blank slate dataset filled from random games. 3.NN learns to produce better games by weighting wins vs losses, making losi…

works "pretty well" in well-defined complete-information domains like Go But no one can definitively say “my AI credit scoring system didn’t decline his mortgage because he is black” and that’s the explainability bar that needs to be passed. Right now the state of it is “gut feel” with an unknown amount of unconscious bias.

Same as humans really.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#56

Post by armitron »

skohan wrote: post #32

Deep learning has produced a lot of interesting results over the past few years, but we're still miles away from anything that even approximates human intelligence. When I hear someone like Elon Musk say something like "Autonomous vehicles can drive without Lidar because humans can drive without Lidar" it makes me cringe. The human brain is unimaginably complex. Even if we created a neural network on the order of the…

The human brain was not designed, but evolved. Why do you think we can't do better when in fact we have done exactly that repeatedly, focusing both on aspects of human biology and other non-human biological systems.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#57

Post by ianai »

lawlessone wrote: post #37
skohan wrote: post #32

Deep learning has produced a lot of interesting results over the past few years, but we're still miles away from anything that even approximates human intelligence. When I hear someone like Elon Musk say something like "Autonomous vehicles can drive without Lidar because humans can drive without Lidar" it makes me cringe. The human brain is unimaginably complex. Even if we created a neural network on the order of the…

>"Autonomous vehicles can drive without Lidar because humans can drive without Lidar" I have another reason to hate this. If we could give humans lidar to make their driving even better why shouldn't we? Why should we deny an AI extra senses that can help it do its job better than we can?

There is such a thing as being crippled by information.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#58

Post by skohan »

newsbinator wrote: post #41
skohan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "we're not building machines that work exactly like the brain does" is a poor counterargument. It's not that artificial intelligence has to work exactly like human intelligence; my point is that the system that produces human intelligence is many orders of magnitude more complex than what passes for AI these days. I think there's an idea out there that because deep learning allows computers to solve some problems t…

It may not be necessary for a system to be as complex as the human brain to reach the raw intelligence levels of the human brain. You don't need to make a vehicle as complex as a cheetah for it to move as quickly as cheetah. You just strap a rocket to a box and you're there. Granted a rough solution like that is not as good or as agile as a live cheetah in a lot of ways, but it depends on what you're optimizing for.

You can also train a horse to tap it's foot once for "yes" and twice for "no". You can ask it a bunch of questions, and it can seem like you're having a conversation, but it turns out the horse is just paying attention to a few details about your body language and performing the action you gave it carrots for. It might seem like intelligence, even to the trainer, but it's a parlor trick.

Re: Is There a Smarter Path to Artificial Intelligence? Some Experts Hope So

#59

Post by skohan »

armitron wrote: post #56
skohan wrote: post #32

Deep learning has produced a lot of interesting results over the past few years, but we're still miles away from anything that even approximates human intelligence. When I hear someone like Elon Musk say something like "Autonomous vehicles can drive without Lidar because humans can drive without Lidar" it makes me cringe. The human brain is unimaginably complex. Even if we created a neural network on the order of the…

The human brain was not designed, but evolved. Why do you think we can't do better when in fact we have done exactly that repeatedly, focusing both on aspects of human biology and other non-human biological systems.

I'm not saying we can't, I'm saying we're not anywhere close yet.
Post reply on HN