Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

1843magazine.com

21–30 of 142 posts

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#21
post #2

"But human intelligence is limited by the size of the skull that houses the brain." When you think about it this way, it seems impossible that we haven't duplicated the capability of the human brain in an airplane hangar somewhere. What's going on inside our heads that we can't mimic? That magical algorithm...

Similar things have been or are being tried (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project).

But the _precise_ capabilities of a human brain are not actually what we want.

For starters, an infant's brain does not have any immediately valuable capabilities.

After that brain is exposed for several years to signals propagating through the brain's host body from the surrounding environment, it has developed many interesting capabilities. But those capabilities are only meaningful in the context of the input stream that the brain has learned to interpret.

So if you want your software simulation of a brain, running on a hangar-sized computing cluster, to perform human grade cognition, then you'll have to provide it with a signal as rich as and of the same form as the signal that we receive on a continual basis through our 1 billion sensory cells (optical, auditory, proprioceptive, etc).

And in order to supply that signal in a realistic way, you'll have to simulate the environment in such a way that it responds to motor output from the simulated brain. (Or you can use the real environment, but then you have to have the brain operate a complete synthetic human body).

All this is a tremendous technical challenge, outlandishly expensive and, even when achieved, does not immediately enhance our understanding of how naturally intelligent systems process information. Nor does it provide us with a means to construct specialized intelligent agents that operate in the world, whether autonomous vehicles, burger flippers, surgeons, or stock brokers.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know nothing about how it works, it seems to derive its information and results from somewhere else as if it's hooked some bigger brain ( which can't see ), so analyzing brain alone we don't find anything.

This is inaccurate. We understand much of how it works, how vision, speech, etc work but we don't understand consciousness which is quite different.

Nonsense.

I’m an actual, working neuroscientist and if we’ve solved any of these things, it would be news to me (and everyone else at my institute). We have good, if coarse, knowledge of which structures are critical for which functions—-at least under some conditions. Our knowledge of how they do this is even cruder: neither the representations nor the algorithms are known with much certainty, let alone how they arise.

Let me give you a very concrete example of where we are. There’s a small nemode called C. elegans. It’s about a millimeter long and has 302 neurons. We know its complete wiring diagram, its genome, and the origin and fate of every cell (not just the neurons) in its tiny, simple body. Its behavior has been studied extensively. And yet...we can’t accurately simulate the damn thing—-and it’s not like it does a lot to begin with.

The human brain has about 86B neurons, and we know an awful lot less about them. Neither vision nor speech is remotely close to “solved” or understood. Consciousness, even in the very limited sense of “why do we fall asleep—-or need to?” is a mote off in the distance.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is inaccurate. We understand much of how it works, how vision, speech, etc work but we don't understand consciousness which is quite different.

Nonsense. I’m an actual, working neuroscientist and if we’ve solved any of these things, it would be news to me (and everyone else at my institute). We have good, if coarse, knowledge of which structures are critical for which functions—-at least under some conditions. Our knowledge of how they do this is even cruder: neither the representations nor the algorithms are known with much certainty, let alone how they ari…

Where did I say anything about simulating? Are you really saying that we understand nothing about how vision works?

Also a 10 second google search pulls up papers with plenty of details about vision in the brain so I don't know why you're talking about it as if its some great mystery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574956/

A 1800 Page textbook on Vision Neuroscience. I'll leave it to HN to decide if we "Understand" Vision. Arbitrarily high requirements for understanding are being thrown about that would leave modern science in shambles if applied. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/visual-neurosciences-2-vol-se...

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#24
post #13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is wrong. look at the size of an elephant brain. they are smart, but not smarter than humans. similarly, bird brains are tiny, but birds have shown significant intelligence, crows in particular have been well studied.

The point is that we're trying to duplicate something with the ability of the human brain, and we aren't constrained by size. We can cheat (e.g. 1,000,000 times bigger with 1,000,000 times the power, etc). We're just missing an algorithm or two.

ah yes, it's true we can keep adding on processors and memory until we go beyond what's in the brain (i think currently deep mind has ~ 11 billion neurons to our 100 billion), and indeed so far it's helping, but my point is that it's not at all clear that "more = better". there is more complexity involved than simply scale. the machine could become schizophrenic for exmaple (seriously).

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#25
post #9
post #2

"But human intelligence is limited by the size of the skull that houses the brain." When you think about it this way, it seems impossible that we haven't duplicated the capability of the human brain in an airplane hangar somewhere. What's going on inside our heads that we can't mimic? That magical algorithm...

this is wrong. look at the size of an elephant brain. they are smart, but not smarter than humans. similarly, bird brains are tiny, but birds have shown significant intelligence, crows in particular have been well studied.

There are many other factors at play, yes, but physical size does impose information-theoretic upper bounds on its processing power. Bounds we're nowhere near probably, but still they are there.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#26
post #2

"But human intelligence is limited by the size of the skull that houses the brain." When you think about it this way, it seems impossible that we haven't duplicated the capability of the human brain in an airplane hangar somewhere. What's going on inside our heads that we can't mimic? That magical algorithm...

If you poke at a real brain, it’s almost fractally complex.

Single ion channels can have surprisingly complicated behaviors that depend on their current state and past history. Individual neurons contain tons of these channels, and can do a lot of powerful computation on their own. Of course, there are 86 billion neurons and combinatorically more connections between them. That’s just the neurons too; God only knows what the glia cells, which outnumber them 10:1, are doing but they’re a lot less passive than many have thought.

On top of this, there’s a whole separate but overlaid network of neuromodulators (hormones, nitric oxide, etc). Electric fields produced by some neurons may even influence the activity of others.

None of this is static, either. Things change on timescales ranging from milliseconds to years, and in response to all sorts of external stimuli.

The brain is bonkers.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. I’m an actual, working neuroscientist and if we’ve solved any of these things, it would be news to me (and everyone else at my institute). We have good, if coarse, knowledge of which structures are critical for which functions—-at least under some conditions. Our knowledge of how they do this is even cruder: neither the representations nor the algorithms are known with much certainty, let alone how they ari…

Where did I say anything about simulating? Are you really saying that we understand nothing about how vision works? Also a 10 second google search pulls up papers with plenty of details about vision in the brain so I don't know why you're talking about it as if its some great mystery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574956/ A 1800 Page textbook on Vision Neuroscience. I'll leave it to HN to decide if we…

We understand lots about how the brain behaves, we understand next to nil about how it behaves that way.

we can't describe how vision, eg, is processed at a molecular or even cellular level, ergo we know nothing.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#28
post #20
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less power doesn't necessarily mean fewer games. According to the paper on AlphaGo Zero, they trained it on ~4.9 million games. > Over the course of training, 4.9 million games of self-play were generated, using 1,600 simulations for each MCTS, which corresponds to approximately 0.4 s thinking time per move.

Assuming a go game takes 30 minutes on average, and you are never sleeping, resting, etc, you can do approx 18k games per year. In order to reach 4.9 million games you'd have to play for approx 280 years. So yeah, definitely not thousands of years :). Still, we are maybe one or two orders of magnitude away from the amount of games that humans need to play to become world class players. That being said, the AlphaGo ze…

I doubt a human could learn to become even remotely competitive with only self-play within a human lifetime. Go has improved via a distributed effort, so we should try to estimate the number of go games played by humanity (as an upper bound).

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#29
post #2

"But human intelligence is limited by the size of the skull that houses the brain." When you think about it this way, it seems impossible that we haven't duplicated the capability of the human brain in an airplane hangar somewhere. What's going on inside our heads that we can't mimic? That magical algorithm...

If you poke at a real brain, it’s almost fractally complex. Single ion channels can have surprisingly complicated behaviors that depend on their current state and past history. Individual neurons contain tons of these channels, and can do a lot of powerful computation on their own. Of course, there are 86 billion neurons and combinatorically more connections between them. That’s just the neurons too; God only knows w…

The coolest part about this is probably how little energy it needs. It's about 20 Watts. Current node sizes are already smaller than axon diameters. If it weren't for power, we could probably scale up manufacturing processes of current semiconductor technology to build giant room sized chips but we simply wouldn't be able to cool those things. Instead we are forced to wrap a ton of metal around them and plastic and air and provide extensive cooling.

Re: DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

#30
post #15

Apologies in advance for the meta-comment (feel free to disregard) about this: > [Opening Paragraph of Article:] One afternoon in August 2010, in a conference hall perched on the edge of San Francisco Bay, a 34-year-old Londoner called Demis Hassabis took to the stage. Walking to the podium with the deliberate gait of a man trying to control his nerves, he pursed his lips into a brief smile and began to speak: [...]…

Yeah, you'd be in the minority. Technical people are already in the minority. Technical people who read The Economist voraciously are an even smaller minority. 1843magazine.com looks like it's run by The Economist. I believe their target readers love reading this style of writing. It's illustrative and engaging for when you're reading a story. For gathering technical information, 1843magazine.com should not be your f…

The Economist itself doesn’t have this style, btw. 1843 is some newer magazine they’re putting out that’s much fluffier.
Post reply on HN