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

131–140 of 142 posts

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

#131

Post by 0-_-0 »

mattkrause wrote: post #34
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…

I have a PhD in visual neuroscience, so yeah, I’m pretty comfortable saying we don’t know how it works. We know a lot of facts, and we have some ideas about how various small things are implemented, but in terms of grand unifying theories, we’re nowhere close. For example, suppose I showed you two gratings (think zebra stripes): a small patch and a larger one. Under some circumstances, you’ll have a harder time deter…

It's quite unrelated, but I've been wondering something about neuroscience grammar: Why is it "in primary visual cortex" and not "in _the_ primary visual cortex"?

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

#132

Post by primo44 »

0-_-0 wrote: post #131
mattkrause wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a PhD in visual neuroscience, so yeah, I’m pretty comfortable saying we don’t know how it works. We know a lot of facts, and we have some ideas about how various small things are implemented, but in terms of grand unifying theories, we’re nowhere close. For example, suppose I showed you two gratings (think zebra stripes): a small patch and a larger one. Under some circumstances, you’ll have a harder time deter…

It's quite unrelated, but I've been wondering something about neuroscience grammar: Why is it "in primary visual cortex" and not "in _the_ primary visual cortex"?

And just regular grammar. "Phenomena" is plural.

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

#133

Post by ivalm »

codekilla wrote: post #97
ivalm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear war is not be capable of wiping out humanity (although causing potentially billions in casualties), a hostile AGI can likely wipe out humanity to the last person.

It can? How exactly? I can never wrap my head around this argument from the AGI risk people. I simply cannot in any way follow their logic. Why is this imaginary creature maniacally homicidal? Please give me a good reason for this. The only correlation I have noticed between intelligence and violence is generally negative (sure this is completely unscientific). Like my friend, who is a pure mathematician, and won't e…

The problem with AGI is not that it wants to run a human-like society sans humans (I don't think AGI wants war in a human sense), the problem is that it may have goals (like famous paperclip maximization) that are incompatible with human continued survival. Humans don't need to be "executed and disposed", they could simply be lost to habitat loss (eg oxygen rich atmosphere can be a pesky thing, why not strip it? or, temperature regulation needs, or whatever. It doesn't take much global terraforming to wipe out humanity inadvertently).

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

#134

Post by mattkrause »

0-_-0 wrote: post #131
mattkrause wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a PhD in visual neuroscience, so yeah, I’m pretty comfortable saying we don’t know how it works. We know a lot of facts, and we have some ideas about how various small things are implemented, but in terms of grand unifying theories, we’re nowhere close. For example, suppose I showed you two gratings (think zebra stripes): a small patch and a larger one. Under some circumstances, you’ll have a harder time deter…

It's quite unrelated, but I've been wondering something about neuroscience grammar: Why is it "in primary visual cortex" and not "in _the_ primary visual cortex"?

I'm not sure!

Your innocuous question has kicked off a pretty feisty debate on my floor about whether it is 'primary' as in first (either in the circuit or evolutionarily) or primary as in most important.

If it's the former, adding a "the" seems to add some unwarranted emphasis. I think there's probably some parallelism too. Primary visual cortex is also called "V1" (as in the first cortical area involved in vision) or "Area 17" (according to a map that defines areas based on their cellular organization). While "in the primary visual cortex" sounds fine, "in the V1" and "in the Area 17" sound barbarous.

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

#135

Post by mattkrause »

primo44 wrote: post #132
0-_-0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite unrelated, but I've been wondering something about neuroscience grammar: Why is it "in primary visual cortex" and not "in _the_ primary visual cortex"?

And just regular grammar. "Phenomena" is plural.

Got nothing for that one :-)

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

#136

Post by subroutine »

beefcafe wrote: post #98
subroutine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except - We're nowhere near it. Using Siri, not itself the outmost edge, but an estimate of the state of the art... If you have an iPhone, take it out and ask Siri how much memory is left on your phone. If she doesn't know how (she doesn't) explain it to her (she can't learn). This is not a philosophical question, it's not a question that requires opinion forming, or fuzzy guesses, it's not a question that requires e…

An iOS dev is going to read this and build that feature into Siri just to mess with you.

I hope so hah. It would be nice if Apple made it so, instead of Siri saying "sorry i cant help you with that" she said "i dont know how to do that, can you teach me". And even if it were not really AI but macro-based, it would be better than nothing.

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

#137

Post by bduerst »

101001001001 wrote: post #110
bduerst wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I disagree, and nothing typed in your condescending dismissal supports what you're saying - either about me, natural selection, or AI in general. It seems like you're projecting some deep seated paranoia onto AGI, and judging from your defensiveness, I would recommend talking to someone professionally about it. Again, you're sweating it a bit too much for what's healthy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#138

Post by 101001001001 »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #128
101001001001 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The condescending tone you have does not help you. And you seem to be more concerned with looking at my account history or brushing me off as “fud” than actually addressing the substance of my comment. And yes, I do so completely believe in what I’ve written that I have opted to not have children until it is clear that a solution will be implemented. There are two parts to my argument: the substrate for AGI to spring…

There was no substance to your comment to address. You can't make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and then demand that you be proved wrong or else require that everyone default to assuming you're right. You made a claim, the burden is on you to support it. You're making many scary claims about AI with no evidence to support your theses, along with a unrelated reference to natural selection. Both of the key argument…

You are wrong. There are no experts in agi because it doesn’t exist. My email is in my bio, please contact me if you want me to guide you through the whole thing and show that you’re wrong. It’s very tiring to repeat myself in comments all the time.

Your links boil down to “Hinton says agi is far away” which first of all isn’t even a refutation of what I’m saying really and second he’s a ML person. He’s not an agi person. He’s never built an agi. He doesn’t know.

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

#139

Post by 101001001001 »

bduerst wrote: post #137
101001001001 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I disagree, and nothing typed in your condescending dismissal supports what you're saying - either about me, natural selection, or AI in general. It seems like you're projecting some deep seated paranoia onto AGI, and judging from your defensiveness, I would recommend talking to someone professionally about it. Again, you're sweating it a bit too much for what's healthy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s a pretty low blow. Regardless of how much it personally troubles one person or another, the logic of what I say is sound while that of your comment is not. If you want to discuss it further then please contact me via my bio. If I could get you on the phone it would hugely expedite the process of explaining it to you.

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

#140

Post by 101001001001 »

codekilla wrote: post #114
101001001001 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re completely wrong. There are so many corrections I would need to make that I can’t even write them here. If I could talk to you in person or on the phone then I might stand a chance of conveying it all. Is there some way I could PM you my contact info? I’m going to put my email in my bio so you can reach me there. Yes, I am so sure and so serious that I would be willing to take this to a phone call or meetup. J…

What is your background? I've been studying math, neuroscience , AI, biology etc for a long time. I left quantitative finance (after leaving a math program) to work at a university developing computational biology software. In finance I worked with neural networks well over a decade ago before people in Silicon Valley had even heard of them. Convince me you're not a kook and I'd be glad to have a conversation.

I have a background in computer science. If this debate could be settled with career milestones then you would win.

Listen, I’m not a kook. I’m an ordinary guy who likes to think things through deeply and completely. And I just can’t escape the conclusions that I’m drawing when it comes to AGI. But other than making internet comments about AGI, I have a very good and normal life.

Post reply on HN