Live data from Hacker News

The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

gen.medium.com

81–90 of 384 posts

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applying this method of thinking, is there anything that we aren't one invention away from?

I'm just trying to stay positive. If you talk optimistically about AI (or big data for that matter) you quickly get downvoted these days. I'm curious as to why that is. I thought this was 'marica. Isn't this 'marica? Edit: my apologies, that was condescending. I should have finished of with a wink of an eye.

There's optimism and there's being too vague to disprove. You might be able to dodge downvotes by adding more objective content to your comments.

History has played out a particular way quite a few times (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter). If you can tell us why today isn't like all the other days using facts, I'll bet the downvotes will stop.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#83

I can attest. while doing research in a T1 university, all the professors were mildly disgusted by the hype pushed out by startups, and even Google's own internal marketing department. Nonetheless they too are minting the same nonsense in the "introduction" part of academic research, it's a clear case of everyone is playing the game, so "I have to play or be left behind."

I used to work on fundamental molecular microbiology. We looked at what happened when DNA replication went wrong in E. coli.

What I used to do when writing or speaking about it was to start with cancer or antibiotic resistance as if anyone in my field gave a crap about either of those topics. Sure, we do care about those things in the broad sense, but we didn't consider ourselves to be on the front line of solving either of those problems.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#84
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've drawn a couple of circles and we want to draw the rest of the owl, and you're telling us there's only one step.

Yes. Because we don't know it is an owl we should draw. It's equally likely AI is just three circles combined.

exactly... we don't even have a definition of consciousness that is better than Jacobellis v. Ohio - For that matter, I'm not sure we even have it that good. I'm not sure I'd recognize a non-human consciousness when I saw it. I'm not sure anyone would.

I mean, sure, I can totally see the idea that consciousness is maybe some emergent property of complex systems... in which case, sure, we could stumble upon it by accident. That is totally possible; we're creating complex self-replicating systems all over the place.

But as far as intentionally constructing the thing that will come after humanity? we can't do that until we know what, exactly, it is we are constructing, and as far as I can tell, we're pretty far away from any idea of exactly what that is.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#85
post #73

At the Biennale in Venice (one of the most important art shows there is) I saw a work which looked like this: There was a metal frame holding two glas plates with ventian sediment inbetween (sand, soil, mud). In the center there was another metal frame which formed a hole. There also were to PCB boards with ATMEGA micro controllers. In the text the artist claimed she controlled the biome of the soil with an AI using…

We might be headed for the trough of disillusionment, but in terms of technology and industry applications, we are still in the early phase of modern AI (big data + ML).

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#86
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in knowing what coungerarguments the people downvoting this comment might know of, which I apparently don't.

>> The list of discrete tasks (games, decision making once the parameters are defined) a computer can't do is a very short list. > I'd be interested in knowing what coungerarguments the people downvoting this comment might know of, which I apparently don't. I didn't downvote, but I will cite artistic endeavours. How long until a film crew of computers can shoot, edit and score a documentary or film that would be inte…

> How long until we could assemble an orchestra of computers that can interpret sheet music with feeling well enough to impress a human audience?

As others wrote, this will be the first to go. In fact, I believe current breed of NNs can do this already.

Artistic creativity is a trivial problem compared to all others. All you have to do is inject a bit of randomness to the process and then not tell people that the work was done by a computer program.

The "interpret sheet music with feeling" actually happens within the brain of the listener, who tries to connect the music and feelings it evokes in them to a vision of a human being who created that music. In other words, emotions are actually projected. The mechanism works somewhat well if the artist is a human with clear intent of creating emotional impact. But when the artist doesn't intend to create that impact, the audience will find one in there anyway. And so will they if the artist is actually a matrix multiplicator running on a stack of GPUs.

The same phenomenon happens in writing[0], but writing (and similarly, painting) is harder, because the sentences have to have at least some semblance of sense[1]. In music, anything that's not just pure white noise can get accolades for creativity if you insist hard enough that it was composed by a gifted human.

--

- [0] - Ever heard of the stories about people building these whole towers of interpretations of a literary work, and then when someone asks the author whether they meant any of that, it turns out the whole edifice is just a pile of bullshit, and the author really just wanted to write a story they liked?

- [1] - But see https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/14/gwerns-ai-generated-po..., in particular near the end of the post.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#87
AGI is a gradient, not an arbitrary threshold.

We are not capable of recreating human level intelligence yet, but our modern algorithms had become magnitudes better at generalization and sample efficiency. And this trend is not showing any signs of slowing down.

Take PPO for example (powers the OpenAI 5 dota agent), the same algorithms can be used for robotic arms as it does with video games. Two completely different domains of tasks now generalizable under one algorithm. That to me is a solid step towards more general AI.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#88

The author seems confused about what artificial general intelligence is. People have not meaningfully moved towards AGI - it's still a distant pipe dream. The closest we've gotten is probably a Dota bot that's pretty good as long as you give the bot a huge advantage. Which is an incredible piece of technology, but about as close to AGI as an ant is to a human.

> a Dota bot that's pretty good as long as you give the bot a huge advantage

Excuse my ignorance but what is the huge advantage? And what happens if you don't give the bot that?

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#89
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I will admit to have used/benefited from the myth that chess skill is related in some way to general human intelligence, it’s a myth. Key differences between chess and real world: perfect information game, finite problem space, well defined rules. It blows my mind that serious people believe that ability to outperform human chess players using massive compute is some kind of major step towards AGI. If only i…

I suppose it's a subset of "well defined rules", but it's worth calling out explicitly, I think: Chess also has an objective (and trivially verifiable) win condition. There are few interesting situations in real life where such a thing exists.

In that regard, AlphaGo is a lot more impressive, not just because it is a vastly more complex problem to find a loss function for playing Go (compared to chess), but also because AlphaGo basically learned to play the game by itself without even having a model of the game rules initially (or so I've heard).

That said, I would still not consider it anything like generalized AI, if only because the set of possible (valid) actions at any point in the game is tiny, while in real-world problems it is basically infinite.

Re: The BS-Industrial Complex of Phony A.I.

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually most modern neural networks are not probabilistic, they are deterministic function approximators. Also your point 3) isn’t quite correct either, often a “standard” architecture and training procedure (e.g. ResNet50 with Adam) will work on a new task with sufficient training data and minimal modification of the model.

The only nnets I mentioned were “classical” as a purposefully over simplified example. Yeah, they can model any function, but historically they were used for probabilistic density functions (if I remember correctly). Most of what the article talked about can be done with much simpler models, which is what I get peeved about. Also, yes, you can transfer learn with resnet. But if I throw my bank statements at it, it’ll…

You might be confusing the historical use of the sigmoid activation function with probabilistic modeling, neural networks in the 80s were used similarly to how they are today, albeit at a much smaller scale due to hardware limitations at the time.

The development of neural networks is a major contribution of the machine learning community, so even if you’d like to split hairs about whether the “computer is learning” (“learning” has a a precise technical definition by the way), NNs are not “just statistics.”

Post reply on HN