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

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#291

Post by StreamBright »

gdb wrote: post #76
pron wrote: post #40

Congrats on the investment, but this release reads like a parody. I believe that building a beneficial warp-drive engine will be the most important technological development in human history, with the potential to shape the trajectory of humanity. The aliens we're sure to encounter will be capable of mastering more fields than any one human — like a tool which combines the skills of Curie, Turing, and Bach. An alien…

(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…

I am not sure how creating better pattern recognition software (let's face it, 90% of "AI" is pattern recognition) helps you achieve AGI. You selected a tiny slice of the problem and keep improving on it. Is this going to be enough to achieve AGI?

Downvoters please share why this is not true.

"the goal of creating artificial intelligence is to create a system that converses, learns, and solves problems on its own. AI first used algorithms to solve puzzles and make rational decisions. Now, it uses deep learning techniques like the one from this MIT experiment to identify and analyze patterns so it can predict real-life outcomes. Yet for all that learning, AI is only as smart as a “lobotomized, mentally challenged cockroach,” as Michio Kaku explained"

https://bigthink.com/laurie-vazquez/why-artificial-intellige...

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#292

Post by sgt101 »

narrator wrote: post #176
gdb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…

There are certain types of algorithms such as protein folding that are exponential time in silicon, but constant time in biochemistry. Right now AI can approximate polynomial time algorithms like alpha/beta minimax for game playing in constant time, but can it approximate exponential time algorithms in constant time?

no.

Although, it isn't clear to me that humans can do that either.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#293

Post by mritchie712 »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #258
mritchie712 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially true considering we're talking about software vs. hardware (airplane). A few, or even one, brilliant mind(s) could make a break thru in AGI in a matter of months.

> A few, or even one, brilliant mind(s) could make a break thru in AGI in a matter of months. same goes for warp drives doesn't it? The point is that people don't see how we build THAT out of these tools we currently have. We only build pastiches of intelligence today and either we have an arrogant view of the level of our own intelligence or we can't make THAT with THIS. But maybe warp-drives, maybe world-peace too?

No, way wrong, there would be enormous hardware costs to building a warp drive. There are near zero costs (possibly) of building AGI.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#294

Post by houzertuch »

khawkins wrote: post #245
houzertuch wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI will the the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. Even if you can’t see that, you can see that it has the potential to be very bad. I know this because OpenAI literature always stresses that AGI has to be guided and developed by the right people because the alternative is rather unpleasant. So essentially its a gamble and you know it. With everyone’s lives at stake. But instead of asking everyone wheth…

This argument is akin to the argument that the LHC might create a black hole that will destroy the world. "Scientists might do something that will destroy us all and I know this because I read a few sci-fi novels and read a few popsci articles but am otherwise ignorant about what the scientists are actually doing. But since the stakes are so high (which I can't show), on the chance that I'm right (which is likely 0)…

And the people at cern often publish literature that warns of the possibility of black holes? and advocates particle acceleration to be done by people with good intentions so that the black holes are kept at bay? Your comment is so full of holes that I can see through it.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#295

Post by gonehome »

pron wrote: post #254
gonehome wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AGI is achievable (seems likely given brains are all over the place in nature) and achieving it will have consequences that dwarf everything else then doesn't it make sense to focus on it? Yes, historically people were way too optimistic and generally went down AI rabbit holes that went nowhere, but two years before the Wright flyer flew, the Wright brothers themselves said it was 50 years out (and others were sti…

First of all, I was talking the language, not the work. It makes sense to study AI as it does many other subjects, but we don't know that it will "have consequences that dwarf everything else" because we don't know what it will be able to do and when (we think that it could but so could, say, a supervirus, or climate change, or the return of fascism). People hang all sort of dreams on AI precisely because of that. Th…

I can understand your point about the language, but I guess I think it's reasonable to set the goal for what you actually want and work towards it. It may turn out to be unattainable, but I think generally you need to at least set it as the goal. It also seems less clear to me that they are close or far from it (I don't think it's on the same level as warp drive).

I don't know about the god thing you mention and the rationalist stuff I've read hasn't been about that. The main argument as I understand it is:

1. AGI is possible

2. Given AGI is possible if it's created without the ability to align its goals to human goals we will lose control of it.

3. If we lose control of it, it will have unknown outcomes which are more likely to be bad than benign or good.

Therefore we should try and figure out a way to make it safe before AGI exists.

Maybe humans just happen to be an intelligence upper bound and anything operating at a higher level goes crazy? That seems unlikely to me given that humans have a lot of biological constraints (heads have to fit out of birth canals, have to be able to run on energy from food, selective pressure for other things besides just intelligence). You could be right, but I'd bet on the other side.

The last bit is if we can solve this in a way that aligns the goals with human goals (open question since humans themselves are not really aligned) we could solve most problems we need to solve.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#296

Post by iguy »

kowdermeister wrote: post #205
misterman0 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other [...]" In one of your examples, which are all of narrow AI, we see a mechanical crab powered by ML that has become specialized in walking with a broken limb, which is not even close to what we need if we aim for AGI. For AGI we don't need agents that mimic simple behavior. In my opinion, _mimicking_ behavior will not lead to AGI. What _will_ lead to AGI? N…

macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior and I brought these narrow AI examples as a counter argument since they demonstrate that we can, even complex ones. Domain specific? Yeah, bummer. Nowhere I have stated this is the clear path to AGI and you are right, we are missing key building blocks. But I feel like there's too much skepticism agains this field while the advancements are not a…

> macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior

No, the complaint was about modelling the behavior of simple organisms.

Certainly we can model some of their behaviors, many of which are highly stereotyped. But the real fly (say) doesn't only walk/fly/scratch/etc, it also decides when to do all of these things. It has ways to decide what search pattern to fly given confusing scents of food nearby. It has ways to judge the fitness of a potential mate, and ways to try to fool potential mates. Our simulations of these things are, I think, really terrible.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#297

Post by StreamBright »

gonehome wrote: post #274
Quarrelsome wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few, or even one, brilliant mind(s) could make a break thru in AGI in a matter of months. same goes for warp drives doesn't it? The point is that people don't see how we build THAT out of these tools we currently have. We only build pastiches of intelligence today and either we have an arrogant view of the level of our own intelligence or we can't make THAT with THIS. But maybe warp-drives, maybe world-peace too?

Not really - we're not sure if warp drive is possible given the physical constraints of the universe. AGI is possible because intelligence is possible (and common on earth) in nature.

Following your reasoning, flying with the speed of light is possible because photons travel with the speed of light. We are not photons though. Is it possible or not to travel with the speed of light with a spaceship?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#298

Post by sverige »

mikorym wrote: post #262
gonehome wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AGI is achievable (seems likely given brains are all over the place in nature) and achieving it will have consequences that dwarf everything else then doesn't it make sense to focus on it? Yes, historically people were way too optimistic and generally went down AI rabbit holes that went nowhere, but two years before the Wright flyer flew, the Wright brothers themselves said it was 50 years out (and others were sti…

Why would AGI dwarf anything? There are at least 7 billion beings on the planet with AGI already. I think a bigger problem is the general well being of the aforementioned 7 billion entities.

AGI would dwarf those 7 billion people because it would concentrate tremendous power into the hands of a very few.

It's the dream of being one of the few who gets to control and direct that concentrated power that fuels these dreams, which is why it's imperative that they dress it up in the language of benefiting society.

The essence of the ethical problem with AI is that there is no person or small group of people who can be trusted to use such power without creating a real dystopia for the rest of us.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#299

Post by ethbro »

fullshark wrote: post #234
ethbro wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link to the TED talk on your warp drive? Your company sounds like it's doing amazing things, and these are exactly the kind of world-changing ideas I listen to TED to hear about. (/s)

Not exactly what you are asking for, but the Onion did a great send up of techno-utopian TED talks here: https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q

Point being that's every TED talk.

(1) Outline a problem everyone agrees with, (2) present cool research that works as a prototype, (3) skip over any scaling and manufacturing issues, (4) end with a joke.

Everyone leaves happy. ;)

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#300

Post by StreamBright »

tim333 wrote: post #213
pron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…

>we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence Then again I don't know many insects that drive cars, beat the champions at chess and go or similar.

I dont know ___a single___ software that can do these either. This is exactly one challenge for AGI, to know which pattern recognition part to pull up in which situation. An insect can make decisions when to fly, crawl or procreate. I do not think that we have something similar in software just yet.
Post reply on HN