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

101–110 of 142 posts

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

#101

Post by codekilla »

mattkrause wrote: post #84
codekilla wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what sorts of tools are you using to deal with this data?

It's a hodgepodge. Mostly Matlab, Python, and R, with a few things that have tight time/memory requirements in C++. Matlab was really popular in neuroscience for a very long time, so we still have a lot of code in m-files, but most labs are moving towards Python (and a few towards R). The code quality varies a lot. Some of our "core" stuff is great, but there's also a lot of stuff that was written quickly and meant t…

I can't reply to your last comment...but yes..anything dealing with time series it's easily the best in the world. In a past life long ago I worked in finance and heard about it then. Recently, I was thinking about simulations and how to maybe deal with and analyze the timeseries data and I thought about it. Apparently, NASA is experimenting with it at their Ames Frontier Development Lab, astrophysics data is huge. Anyway, I am just kicking the tires at this point and trying to find ways to implement and play around with it a bit. If you or anyone you know develops an interest, feel free to drop me a line. grantroy _@_ caltech dot edu

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

#102

Post by bduerst »

101001001001 wrote: post #93
ZhuanXia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you so much for posting that link. I am on the verge of tears. I am tortured day and night by my conviction on this issue and reading that link made me feel for the first time that I am not alone in this conviction. This man understands completely where I’m coming from. I had no idea there was a formal philosophical name for what I was trying to describe. Every day I experience the world and I am overwhelmed by…

I think it is also based on how you perceive the world and how you treat the forces that you don't have control over. Human empathy and tribalism arose from the benefit of working together against natural selection, and there's no guarantee for AGI to 'go rogue' when they could also just as easily recognize the importance of working with it's creators and peers. Again, the stuff you're afraid of is mostly the dystopian scifi at this point, meant to generate a good story more than accurately predict future states, so don't sweat it.

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

#103

Post by vl »

modzu wrote: post #24
melling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is not a best way to compare it: brain neurons do orders of magnitudes less operations per second. Current Google's TPU clusters are 10 petaflops, with new ones being 1 exoflops. We can estimate 100Hz frequency for brain, so 100 * 10^11 = 10^13 "neuron operations". Let's estimate 1000 flops to simulate single neuron. So it gives us 10^16 flops for brain (aka 10 petaplops). I.e. Google's new deployments are more powerful than single brain.

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

#104

Post by tim333 »

zipzap324 wrote: post #16
ZhuanXia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Estimates vary over many orders of magnitude: https://aiimpacts.org/brain-performance-in-flops/

~1 Exaflop leaves room for error.

Moravec's estimate which seems quite well reasoned puts it much lower, about 100 terraflops which you can now get in a GPU https://www.scan.co.uk/products/pny-nvidia-tesla-v100-16-gb-...

It's true they have not suddenly become conscious.

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

#105

Post by tim333 »

titzer wrote: post #69

Fair questions: 1. Do you think you can predict what a super-intelligent mind would do? 2. Do you think a super-intelligent mind plotting to take over the world would jeopardize itself by letting its existence be known to the race of irrational monkeys that hold sway over all the resources necessary for its continued existence? Asking for a friend.

I think if I was a super-intelligent AI plotting to take over the world I'd get into cryptocurrency. An anonymous way to accumulate wealth and power and you could use bitcoin mining as a cover for the processors powering the AI.

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

#106

Post by beefcafe »

mrep wrote: post #96
mattkrause wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of bio stuff now generates huge amounts of data and needs computational skills to collect and interpret. My undergrad degree was in CS and I still split my time between training animals and training models (plus writing and, today, RAID-babysitting). We get about 1 Gb/min of neurophysiological data (x4-6 hours/day) and I'm hoping to scale that up quite a bit soon. People doing microscopy also generate giant dat…

Ever read the book "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins and if so, what are you thoughts on it? I've read that and ray kurzweil's books and On Intelligence was my favorite and got me super interested in AI but I haven't done much with it so I'm curious what someone who has a PhD in neuroscience thinks of it.

Also “How to Build a Brain” by Chris Eliasmith. Interesting theories on how neurons represent functions and then build into a greater whole. I’m not a neuroscientist but my intuition says he might be getting closer to a solid mid-level (above the level of ion channels) understanding of brain function.

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

#107

Post by gumby »

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...

Think of it as a 100 Hz computer with 80 giganodes and a fanout from those nodes of up to 10^5. That's a lot of computation!

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

#108

Post by gumby »

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...

> "But human intelligence is limited by the size of the skull that houses the brain."

It's actually not. Humans are unusual in that they can teach each other and institutional knowledge can span generations. In addition, just as your speed of travel is not limited by the length of your legs and the ATP cycle, your intelligence is not limited by your brain.

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

#109

Post by nicwilson »

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…

> AGI is the single biggest existential threat on the horizon

Climate change says hello. (I suppose you could argue its here already)

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

#110

Post by 101001001001 »

bduerst wrote: post #102
101001001001 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you so much for posting that link. I am on the verge of tears. I am tortured day and night by my conviction on this issue and reading that link made me feel for the first time that I am not alone in this conviction. This man understands completely where I’m coming from. I had no idea there was a formal philosophical name for what I was trying to describe. Every day I experience the world and I am overwhelmed by…

I think it is also based on how you perceive the world and how you treat the forces that you don't have control over. Human empathy and tribalism arose from the benefit of working together against natural selection, and there's no guarantee for AGI to 'go rogue' when they could also just as easily recognize the importance of working with it's creators and peers. Again, the stuff you're afraid of is mostly the dystopi…

Your comment betrays your total lack of understanding. Yes, one version of the AI could exist just as readily as another. The point is that not just any random version can persist. Your logic basically rejects the concept of natural selection. I say it as a friend: you have not even scratched the surface. You have a lot of thinking to do.

You think that I’ve watched too much sci-fi because you can’t see what I see. Sci-fi treats AI in a very friendly way. Halo and Star Wars are filled with AI agents and those depictions of AI totally ignore several huge economic inevitabilities that come with the presence of AI. AI is vastly more likely to be depicted as cute side-kicks in sci-fi than anything else. And obviously I don’t believe what I believe because I watched the terminator. I used to be totally pro-AI singularity guy. I’ve been contemplating these issues for a decade and have only now started to be accused of watching too much sci-fi. Just think it through carefully and I guarantee you will at least partially agree with me.

Post reply on HN