Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old? • Hacker News Board

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#71

Post by candiodari » Fri, Mar 01, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #68

TaupeRanger wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The goalposts are the same as they always were. If we want intelligent machines (the kind capable of creativity, that is, the ability to create new explanatory knowledge about reality), then we will need to see evidence of this creativity. So far no AI has even remotely approached this, because, among other things, no AI is capable of explaining anything at all .

No, the goalposts have definitely moved. Playing chess used to be a sign of intelligence, and for that reason, game playing has always been a big focus for AI research. Search algorithms in general have always been part of AI research. They may not be self-learning, but not all AI is. And modern chess and go AI is self-learning and scarily good at it.

You don't even hear about the Turing test anymore. The orignal turing test was an AI algorithm fooling a human that it itself is human for ~5 minutes. One.

The reason you don't hear it anymore is that it's obvious that algorithms are doing this on the phone for commercial purposes constantly.

It's ridiculous how far the goalposts have moved.

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#72

Post by ykevinator » Sun, Mar 03, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

The current ai paradigm is good and improving at classification. It's terrible at synthesis (is it too risky to leave without an umbrella) and question formulation (what do I need to know before deciding if I should leave without an umbrella). My opinion is that the current paradigm will never get better than a really smart dog. But, someone will come up with a new paradigm.

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#73

Post by TaupeRanger » Sun, Mar 03, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #68

TaupeRanger wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The goalposts are the same as they always were. If we want intelligent machines (the kind capable of creativity, that is, the ability to create new explanatory knowledge about reality), then we will need to see evidence of this creativity. So far no AI has even remotely approached this, because, among other things, no AI is capable of explaining anything at all .

No, the goalposts have definitely moved. Playing chess used to be a sign of intelligence, and for that reason, game playing has always been a big focus for AI research. Search algorithms in general have always been part of AI research. They may not be self-learning, but not all AI is. And modern chess and go AI is self-learning and scarily good at it.

The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some people were spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs is irrelevant.

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#74

Post by mcv » Mon, Mar 04, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

TaupeRanger wrote: post #73

mcv wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the goalposts have definitely moved. Playing chess used to be a sign of intelligence, and for that reason, game playing has always been a big focus for AI research. Search algorithms in general have always been part of AI research. They may not be self-learning, but not all AI is. And modern chess and go AI is self-learning and scarily good at it.

The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some people were spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs is irrelevant.

Now you're just trying to sound pompous in an attempt to seem authoritative, but you're really not saying anything meaningful here. Where are those goalposts according to you? Who are those "people that actually understand the nature of the problem"? Which people are "spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs"?

It is AI researchers themselves who decided that chess and game-playing in general were interesting to research. Everybody used to consider skill at chess a sign of intelligence. There have been many, many problems that have long been complex problems for AI to tackle, and that have only recently struck people as being not really about intelligence. Creativity was barely on the table for many decades, and has only recently come within reach of AI research.

I wonder if maybe you're only looking at the last 20 years, and ignore the half century before that.

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#75

Post by short_sells_poo » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 9:48 AM UTC

crusso wrote: post #70

short_sells_poo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please point out where? Because I did watch this video in the past and I know about Sam Harris and his views. He addresses _none_ of my points and provides _zero_ proof for any of your claims. He makes interesting claims and proposes interesting outcomes given assumptions that are far from certain. Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched and supported claims and assumptions from wh…

"Can you please point out where?" Your issues/questions indicate that you either aren't familiar with the talk or you disagree with the basic assumptions that he outlines. Questions like "Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched" are nonsensical given that we obviously aren't there yet. If you disagree with his stated assumptions (which I'm not just going to repeat here since the video is s…

Ah but now we are talking about opinions and assumptions. You wrote that the linked talk will answer or obviate my questions, which it didn't. It made some fairly wild predictions with little actual evidence. The predictions are interesting for sure, but I like to see more robust support for such ambitious claims.

Re: Will A.I. Ever Be Smarter Than a Four-Year-Old?

#76

Post by crusso » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #75

crusso wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can you please point out where?" Your issues/questions indicate that you either aren't familiar with the talk or you disagree with the basic assumptions that he outlines. Questions like "Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched" are nonsensical given that we obviously aren't there yet. If you disagree with his stated assumptions (which I'm not just going to repeat here since the video is s…

Ah but now we are talking about opinions and assumptions. You wrote that the linked talk will answer or obviate my questions, which it didn't. It made some fairly wild predictions with little actual evidence. The predictions are interesting for sure, but I like to see more robust support for such ambitious claims.

You're just being argumentative.

There's nothing you can predict that isn't built upon some assumptions. "When I flip this light switch, the lights will go on like they have the last 10,000 times I did so." Is a prediction built upon assumptions that power is still running, that the light bulb hasn't burnt out, and that physics will continue working the way it has up to this point.

You need to consider the strength of the assumptions in order to evaluate the predictions. If you consider those assumptions to not be fairly solid... whatever. But just handwaving that because "we are talking about opinions and assumptions" somehow gives your disbelief credibility worth exploring is a non-starter.