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

Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 256 posts

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#121

Post by pas »

lsc wrote: post #65

what I find interesting is that for most of my life, Moore's law was... as real as gravity; It seemed like any problem you had, wait a few years and you could just brute force it. The future really did look limitless. Now, moore's law has slowed down. Hell, I've got a 7 year old laptop next to me, and it still works for games. I mean, in the '90s, a 7 year old computer would be a museum piece. I mean, for big AI adva…

Everyone seemed to dislike the movie Transcendence, but at least it handled the opening of pandora's box scenario well.

Hard take off is not likely, simply because to go from a cat level intelligence to above human the resource requirements would be enormous. (If evolution needed hundreds of thousands of years, it's unlikely that a cat-level agent can do it that much faster without being noticed by a group of humans.)

But humans like to play God, and also play with fire. It's just a matter of time to play with Skynet and oops it's really Skynet.

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#122

Post by chobeat »

ru999gol wrote: post #88

> The penultimate premise is if we create an artificial intelligence, whether it's an emulated human brain or a de novo piece of software, it will operate at time scales that are characteristic of electronic hardware (microseconds) rather than human brains (hours). I never understood that argument, why would that be true? If I train a state of the art convnet it takes days on the most efficient hardware I can efford,…

And even if you defy computational constraints, it will still be constrained by physical limitations. You can experience the world just so quickly. Stuff needs time to happen and you being faster than stuff won't be any help after a while.

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#123

Post by pas »

chobeat wrote: post #119
pas wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general, I see a lot of merit in the arguments on both sides of this discussion. That's great news. One side is alarmist about a potential humanity extinction event, the other side is not. Even a small chance that the alarmists are right means we should take their view seriously, right?

No, if there's no ground to do so. Chemtrailers believe that there are gigantic conspirancies to subdue humans (and ultimately worsen the condition of the whole humanity) but we shouldn't take them seriously.

Hm, then what are the merits you see, and why are they insufficient, why do you see the whole argument as groundless?

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#125

Post by exoesquitur »

lsc wrote: post #83
harshreality wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're essentially arguing that AGI can't exist, and you're assuming when people say "AI will turn the world to paperclips" they mean a really smart go-playing neural net could do that. Of course it can't. Everyone agrees there is some magic smoke necessary for AGI that we haven't figured out yet. The arguments that AI will eat the world are about AGI , not current instances of narrow AI. It may be true that an AGI w…

Eh, if you are talking about something truly human-like rather than what people usually mean when they say AI these days, I think there are other limits. We're running up against limits on feature-size in our integrated circuits. If you invent an AGI that can make smarter copies of itself... it's pretty likely those same physical limits will continue to apply, meaning that each iteration will be better than the last,…

What you say is true for silicon, but Turing complete molecular machinery is already out there, we just have yet to master its intricacies.

The nightmare AGI scenario likely involves molecular computing using a chemically optimal code-base and engineered lifeforms a version or two up from current DNA microcode.

This is most likely to be created by a human-AI collaboration, which will be innocuous enough in itself.... it's the creations at this level that have the potential to replace us. Would that nesecarily be bad? Or just an enhanced form of human evolution?

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#126

Post by [deleted] »

nl wrote: post #87
harshreality wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're essentially arguing that AGI can't exist, and you're assuming when people say "AI will turn the world to paperclips" they mean a really smart go-playing neural net could do that. Of course it can't. Everyone agrees there is some magic smoke necessary for AGI that we haven't figured out yet. The arguments that AI will eat the world are about AGI , not current instances of narrow AI. It may be true that an AGI w…

Everyone agrees there is some magic smoke necessary for AGI that we haven't figured out yet Do they? I don’t (with the possible exception that a definition of AGI itself seems to be this magic smoke)

[deleted]

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#127

Post by nurettin »

I know we have tools that mimic reasoning and learning pretty well, but since they are just tools that require a lot of energy and complex hardware and nobody has been able to actually build a mind, or has ever tried to, what's with all the uproar about AI dystopia?

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#128

Post by TeMPOraL »

nl wrote: post #106
Piskvorrr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than it is to solve it. In other words, saying "it's the definition that we don't have, not the implementation" just pushes the magic smoke around.

I don’t understand what you are saying. I’m saying that I don’t think human intelligence is doing anything more than pattern matching, logical inference and post-hoc justification. Give me an example of something that falls outside that. There is no magic.

I don't think GP means "magic smoke" as in actual magic, some new physics. It's more like we just have few potential building blocks (e.g. pattern matching), but we're not sure if we have all of them, and we definitely don't know how to connect them together to create sentience.

(And no, more GPUs running faster DNNs doesn't seem like an answer.)

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People (2016)

#129

Post by TeMPOraL »

lsc wrote: post #69
nopinsight wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be unconcerned, you need to be very optimistic and have a very strong believe (99% or higher probability) that no AI to be invented in the next four or five decades can deal with novel situations (which we didn’t anticipate beforehand).

Yeah, deal with novel situations better than humans. In a world where we are approaching the physical limits of integrated circuit feature size? I like my chances. Personally, I find it amazing that humanity survived the cold war. the fact we did not self-immolate goes against everything I believe about humanity and human nature. The fact that we made it through that gives me a lot of hope for the future. But, the fi…

> Yeah, deal with novel situations better than humans. In a world where we are approaching the physical limits of integrated circuit feature size? I like my chances.

Why do you think this is relevant?

Consider that a) human brain does intelligence within a small package made out of structures that are large compared to what silicon fabs deal with, and b) we've already beaten the brain in straight compute density by many orders of magnitude. The answer doesn't seem to be "more compute"; it seems to lie in what we're doing with that computing power.

> the fact we did not self-immolate goes against everything I believe about humanity and human nature. The fact that we made it through that gives me a lot of hope for the future.

Back then, we've learned something new about nature of human societies. I don't believe the concept of MAD was known before nuclear weapons. The individual human nature didn't change, nor did the social one; it's just that we already know a lot about the former, but we're still discovering the latter.

Post reply on HN