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

321–330 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#321

Post by gonehome »

clmul wrote: post #310
gonehome wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brains aren't magical, if the laws of nature allow for them to exist in nature and we see generalized intelligence develop and get selected for repeatedly then that suggests it can be done - it's just a matter of knowing how.

It might also be a possibility that this isn't possible to be replicated in an artificial way (that is, human beings maybe aren't smart enough to ever understand their own intelligence, even using all tools to their disposition) In a certain way, brains are so complicated that (at least for the moment) they seem quite magical to us

Things often seem magical until they're understood.

As far as humans not being able to ever understand it, I guess that could be true but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#322

Post by edanm »

technocratius wrote: post #159
edanm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it? How do Godel's incompleteness theorems factor in here? It's a common mistake to think the theorems say more than they really do, or apply in more cases than they really do. AI is simply based on the idea that we can reach at least the level of human intelligence, in artificial software/hardware, which, considering that we ourselves are pure hardware/software and nothing magical, should absolutely be rig…

> considering that we ourselves are pure hardware/software I also supect this, but let's be honest that we as a species are not close to understanding consciousness in it's entirity yet so I'd refrain from making such absolute statements

You're putting too high a bar on what we need to understand. We don't understand physics in its entirety either- we can still say lots of things with confidence.

That we are our physical body is pretty certain. You press a certain part of the brain, and predictably our personality changes. Of course we can't be certain of a lot of things, but I am much more certain of this than I am of of other things, and Godels theorems don't apply.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#323

Post by Matumio »

intrasight wrote: post #241

I'm skeptical that AGI will exist on our planet in my lifetime. I've no doubt that it exists elsewhere in the galaxy. If an alien species does come to visit some day, I think it more likely than not that it'll be an AGI.

I'm sceptical that there would be a distinction between "alien species themselves" and "AGI of alien species". But I also think we should send better adapted machines to Mars instead of air-breathing mammals, so maybe that's just me.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#324

Post by adrianmonk »

tim333 wrote: post #225
adrianmonk wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating for the opposing view (or any view) here, and this is just informational, but since you did specifically ask how... If you want to talk about philosophy (including philosophy of mind but also more basic stuff like materialism vs. dualism), then it's not for certain. I'd hazard a guess most engineers are materialists and reductionists, and from that point of view, yes, it seems like a slam dunk that…

There's quite a lot of experimental evidence in the "purely physical phenomenon" direction. Things like brain surgery, neural implants and mind altering drugs probably wouldn't work as well if they were trying to interact with your non physical spirit.

I definitely see that. It's pretty compelling. You can't deny that certain drugs, for example, are a lever you can pull that makes consciousness go away (or come back). There seems to be a cause-effect relationship there.

But at the same time, I do not understand how it's possible that the consciousness that I subjectively experience can arise from physical processes. Therefore, I have difficulty completely accepting it. I write software. It processes information. I don't believe that the CPU has this same subjective consciousness experience (not even a little) while it's running my for loops and if statements. Suppose I were a genius and figured out an algorithm so that the CPU can process information in a way equivalent to the human brain. Would it have consciousness then? What changed? Does whether it has consciousness depend which algorithm it's executing? Quicksort no, but brain-emulator algorithm yes? They're both just algorithms, so why should the answer be different?

One explanation I've heard is it could be a matter of scale: simple information processing doesn't create consciousness, but sufficiently complex processing does. I can't say that's not true, but it seems hand-wavy and too convenient. Over here we have something that is neither conscious nor complex, and over there we have both conscious and complex, so we'll just say that complexity is the variable that determines consciousness without any further explanation. I realize at some point science works that way: we observe that when this thing happens, this other thing follows, according to this pattern we can characterize (with equations), and we can't get too deep into the why of it, and it's just opaque, and we describe it and call it a "law". Which is fine, but are we saying that this is a law? I'm not necessarily rejecting this idea, but the main argument in favor of it seems to be that it needs to be this way to make the other stuff work out.

Another possible way to reconcile things is the idea that everything is conscious. It certainly gets you out of the problem of explaining how certain groups of atoms banging around in one pattern (like in your brain) "attract" consciousness but other groups of atoms banging around in other patterns don't. You just say they all do, and you no longer need to explain a difference because there isn't one. Nice and simple, but it has some jarring (to me) implications that things around me are conscious that I normally assume aren't. It also has some questions about how it's organized, like why consciousness seems to be separated into entities.

Anyway, there are also other ways of looking at it. My main point here is that it's certainly something I don't understand well, and possibly it is something that nobody has a truly satisfying answer for.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#325

Post by intrasight »

Jach wrote: post #252
intrasight wrote: post #241

I'm skeptical that AGI will exist on our planet in my lifetime. I've no doubt that it exists elsewhere in the galaxy. If an alien species does come to visit some day, I think it more likely than not that it'll be an AGI.

You piqued my interest, what makes you think there's any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, anywhere else but here in the Milky Way?

Space is big and time is long.

You may have been thrown by a typo in my comment. Was "I've do doubt" but meant "I've no doubt"

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#326

Post by EForEndeavour »

ilaksh wrote: post #67
option_greek wrote: post #39

Genuine question: In what sense is OpenAI open ?

Its just like the bag of sugar I have in my cabinet that claims to be low calorie. It says "ONLY 16 CALORIES (per 4 grams in tiny letters)". I mean, sugar is pretty much the definition of a high calorie food. Its like, pure calories. And can affect insulin regulation, etc. That's why they need to put some marketing on it.

Super nitpicky: sugar is 4 kcal/gram, but so is protein, and fats is 9 kcal/g, over double the caloric content.

By saying sugar is "pure calories," I guess you mean that it doesn't contain any fibre or micronutrients that might give it redeeming qualities (besides its taste), which is true.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#327

Post by epiphanitus »

houzertuch wrote: post #244

I don’t understand how there can be no comments regarding the fatal flaw of AGI which is that it will completely ruin the economics of the world. The world is the way it is now because humans are the only source of intelligent signal processing. That’s the only reason why humans enjoy the limited rights and privileges that they do. That’s the only reason why life has gotten better and better with advancing medicine a…

>>The world is the way it is now because humans are the only source of intelligent signal processing. That’s the only reason why humans enjoy the limited rights and privileges that they do. That’s the only reason why life has gotten better and better with advancing medicine and so on.

That's actually an interesting point I haven't thought of before. I disagree with you though. You could have made the same argument during the industrial revolution, but capitalism, democracy and civil liberties are still around.

Also, you're assuming that human symbiosis with AGI is not possible. Nature is full of examples of organisms that are in symbiotic relationships. Of course, nature is also full of organisms that kill and eat and parasitise other organisms.

But the advantage that we humans have is that we are actually creating AIs/AGIs. And since we are creating it, we have influence over what it becomes, whereas, your average clownfish really doesn't have a say over what form his anenome takes.

And if that is the case, wouldn't you want free societies to have expertise in these technologies and to be fine tuning them so that they work for the common benefit?

Why should anyone believe that we can stop authoritarian govts from developing AGI when we can't even stop them from enriching uranium, where the capital costs are much higher?

For better or for worse, it is almost always the case that the difference between societies that hold economic and political power and those that don't is technology. I live in the US, I enjoy my civil liberties, and I would much rather we master these technologies ourselves and have the security that wealth and power provides us. Not saying democracy or capitalism are perfect, but they beat all of the alternatives.

Edit: added another thought

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#328

Post by RIMR »

anchpop wrote: post #282
RIMR wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making a silly mistake actually giving this "too dangerous for society" line any validity. I understand that this tech could be used for nefarious purposes, but this isn't world-ending tech. This is just hard to differentiate from human writing... The choice to keep their "too powerful model" unreleased is more an attempt to stoke sensationalism out of journalists eager to report on "The AI too dangero…

> I understand that this tech could be used for nefarious purposes, but this isn't world-ending tech. This is just hard to differentiate from human writing... When, in any OpenAI communication, have they ever implied GPT2 is world ending tech? > We don't live in the Ghost In the Shell universe, we live in reality, and a text-generating algorithm isn't particularly dangerous when you think about it. Are you sure it wo…

Again, I already made it clear that this has nefarious purposes.

But there is zero utility in keeping the larger dataset secret. Society is not safer as a result.

The only reason they ever framed it the way they did was to get media attention.

"This AI is so dangerous, the creators are refusing to release it to the public!" is going to get way more clicks than "This AI writes English sentences that almost appear coherent.".

If you want more funding and attention towards your project, you're going to say stuff that gets journalists' attention.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#329

Post by p1esk »

runT1ME wrote: post #100
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. Is this true? Is there an insect turing test?

Compare the most advanced self driving car to the simplest insect and you should immediately realize how far we are from insect level AI.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#330

Post by stcredzero »

pron wrote: post #311
stcredzero wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was seven decades ago, and we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. [citation needed] I guess this depends on what "close" is. For something as blue sky as AGI, let me propose the following definition of "close:" X is "close" if there's over a 50% chance of it being achievable in the next 10 years if someone gave $10 billion 2019 US dollars to do it. I think this is a fair metric for "close"…

For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :) Anyway, I think that "if you gave us $10B then in ten years we have even odds of producing something as smart as a jumping spider" does make for less inspirational copy than "[we're] building artificial general intelligence with widely distributed economic benefits."

For a comment this precise I'm surprised you've mistaken spiders for insects :)

True. They're fellow arthropods, and have similar levels of nervous complexity. (BTW, are you by any chance confusing Tarantula Hawks for spiders?)

does make for less inspirational copy

The levels of inspiration in the copy and generalizing across the phylum Arthropoda aside, are you effectively conceding that we're close to AGI at insect levels?

Post reply on HN