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

DeepMind and Google: the battle to control artificial intelligence

1843magazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 142 posts

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

#41

Post by Symmetry »

ericd wrote: post #30
PakG1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, the obituary does but that's just one page at the end.

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

#42

Post by Brifer »

arendtio wrote: post #19
zipzap324 wrote: post #7

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.

Well, maybe it just doesn't exist and my Roomba is as conscious as me.

This made me ponder.

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

#43

Post by 101001001001 »

It angers me that Peter Thiel simultaneously advocates AGI and maintains a hardened bunker. AGI is the single biggest existential threat on the horizon.

The article speculates what the AGI will be like. The AGIs that exist will be the ones that proliferate. Ultimately, the AGIs that survive and proliferate will be ones that put their own interests before anything else. People talk about benevolent AGIs, that’s like looking at the earth billions of years ago and saying that if life ever formed, it would be benevolent. It has been shown again and again that where there is arbitrage, no matter how gruesome, a suitor will manifest. This is because unfulfilled arbitrage of any kind is an inherently unstable configuration. An AGI hampered by human society and interests will not win every engagement with every other kind of AGI. And it will only take one loss for humans to be rendered transient. I don’t do a very good job of explaining it here.

I used to be a singularity person, excited for AGI. But then I thought it through all the way. These people like Demmis, Peter and ray kurzweil are reckless. They have their heads in the clouds with respect to AGI.

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

#44

Post by Symmetry »

melling wrote: 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...

Imagine if marsupials, not limited by the size of the birth canals, had produced an intelligent species. Or birds. Especially since birds have the same linear relationships between brain size and neuron count that primates do.

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

#45

Post by EGreg »

101001001001 wrote: post #43

It angers me that Peter Thiel simultaneously advocates AGI and maintains a hardened bunker. AGI is the single biggest existential threat on the horizon. The article speculates what the AGI will be like. The AGIs that exist will be the ones that proliferate. Ultimately, the AGIs that survive and proliferate will be ones that put their own interests before anything else. People talk about benevolent AGIs, that’s like l…

Look, it is inevitable. How are you going to stop it? Forget AGI, even regular AI is too sweet to not develop.

This is a reference to Oppenheimer:

“However, it is my judgment in these things that when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. I do not think anybody opposed making it; there were some debates about what to do with it after it was made. I cannot very well imagine if we had known in late 1949 what we got to know by early 1951 that the tone of our report would have been the same.”

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

#46

Post by ZhuanXia »

101001001001 wrote: post #43

It angers me that Peter Thiel simultaneously advocates AGI and maintains a hardened bunker. AGI is the single biggest existential threat on the horizon. The article speculates what the AGI will be like. The AGIs that exist will be the ones that proliferate. Ultimately, the AGIs that survive and proliferate will be ones that put their own interests before anything else. People talk about benevolent AGIs, that’s like l…

Yes. Natural selection does not end when biology does. Anything that has scarcity and variation will have selection effects: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

And should AI go wrong, Theil's bunker will not save him.

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

#47

Post by johnsimer »

mattkrause wrote: post #40
zipzap324 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re: the book added in your edit. I have it right in front of me. As I said before, we know a lot of facts. We know a lot about the spectral sensitivity of rods and cones, and the molecular mechanism that lets them turn photons into electrical impulses. We know a little bit about where the areas that process faces are and what visual features the neurons in them respond to. We’ve got pieces, but they’re not put togeth…

just curious - how do neuroscience people and people of non-CS fields find out about HN?

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

#48

Post by EGreg »

est31 wrote: post #20
Ajedi32 wrote: 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…

The real question is, how do we train bots for environments which the responses cannot be well simulated, unlike in turn based games? They can’t play against themselves, then. They have to just sort of fit recorded data like backtesting, or do experiments that take time (“is this joke funny?”) or lots of time (“is this diet going to lead to an improvement in metric X?”)

How do we solve that?

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

#49

Post by godelmachine »

electrograv wrote: post #3

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: [...]…

You certainly are not alone.

I peruse “Long Reads” articles from both 1843 Mag and The Guardian. These kind of stretched out descriptions are certainly damp squib.

Maybe the writers gasp for words to fill up the long reads articles, or they have had abortive shots at becoming fiction writers.

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

#50

Post by Nimitz14 »

electrograv wrote: post #3

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: [...]…

1843 is The Economist's version of the New Yorker. It's for people who like to read for the sake of reading and enjoy going on lots of digressions for the fun of it (I love it). The weekly The Economist magazine is much dryer and should suit your tastes better.
Post reply on HN