201–210 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anyone can hack AI, it's Carmack Pretty sure you don't get to AGI with some hacks.
Don't be trite; You're well aware that hack in this context means to understand/make progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He went on a week long cabin-in-the-middle-of-nowhere trip about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). You must be joking, right? I'm as much of a Carmack fan as anyone here, but overstating the skills of one personal hero does no good to anyone.
What a weird future it would be if Carmack turns out to be the one to figure out the critical path and get it all working. An entire field of brilliant researchers be damned. History books (for as long as those continue to exist) would cite AGI as his major contribution to society, and his name would be more renowned than Edison or Tesla. An Einstein. None of his other contributions will matter, as the machines will…
But it's still a fascinating endeavor.
Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I wonder what kind of advances are needed for AGI. 1. Biological brains are non-differentiable spiking networks much more complicated than backpropagated ANNs. 2. Ion channels may or may not be affected by quantum effects. 3. The search space is huge (but organisms aren't optimal and natural selection is probably local search) 4. If it took ~3.8b years t…
> Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I think you'd be surprised how much progress is also being made outside those two factors. It's sort of like saying graphics only improve with more RAM and faster compute. We know there's more to it than that. In many cases, the cutting edge of a few years ago is easily bested by today's tutorial samples and 30 seconds of training. We're doing better w…
he is 49 this year, considered as one of the most genius programmer on earth. There are professors still doing real work at 90+ year old(yes, the UT professor goodenough for Nobel prize), John has a long way ahead, best luck!
Just out of curiosity, how do you define a genius programmer? (vs regular programmer).
Arguably he got started on this years ago. The story goes that Quake 3's AI was so sophisticated, that when left alone for 4 years on a bot vs bot server, the units learned pacifism as a self-preservation strategy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/07/02/quake-iii-a...
Reminds me of when I was new to Quake 3 and found an amazing server: it was always full of players and full of non-stop action. I played with these people all the time after school. Nobody said anything, they were 100% business which was cool. I would often congratulate them on nice kills or commentate on my victories. Everyone was about the same skill level.
Eventually I realized I was playing on a server that simply filled empty slots with bots. I was the only human player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can explain precisely why we cannot build a conscious machine, you could become one of the most revered, and potentially wealthiest, researchers in the world, as I presume such a proof would necessarily introduce unknown and very useful science. I personally don't believe modern machine learning is remotely close to AI, except perhaps the very lowest rung of the ladder of self-serving AI definitions. I base th…
I can't prove it, but I will tell you why I believe it. We can't build a conscious machine because I believe there is a spiritual aspect to life that we have thus far failed to empirically observe or measure. Put another way, I believe all humans have a "spirit" inside of them, and that said spirit is a prerequisite of conscious thought. This same spirit is what makes life after death possible. This belief, of course…
You're entitled to your belief, of course, but simply asserting the existence of [Christian] souls and an inter-relationship between souls and intelligence isn't sufficient to make your claim.
Discussing souls is probably not appropriate subject matter on HN, but I thought it was worthwhile to make the point that even religions can have and utilize the concept of unknowns to self-limit its theological reach. Technically speaking, orthodox (small 'o') Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestants) only need affirm the Nicene Creed and nothing more, just like, AFAIU, Muslims need only affirm the Shahada. Thus, an orthodox Christian is supposed to affirm the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, etc, but otherwise free to accept or reject machine souls, notwithstanding additional doctrinal strictures of particular denominations that might dictate a particular choice.
[1] This is why you see seemingly radical priests quoted as admitting that aliens could have souls. (And also why it's so easy for Bill Maher or Michael Moore to find a priest to make seemingly contradictory and outrageous statements; more often than not the priest is playing them more than Maher or Moore understand, they're just too cynical to appreciate it.) Catholicism is hardly the only religion, or even Christian religion, with such a concept. But it's perhaps gone to the greatest lengths to develop and integrate the concept with modern logic and science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A general AI would give you all 3
That argument is like saying if we had better theorists you wouldn't need to build particle accelerators. Nature has brute facts that can only be discovered through observation. I would be surprised to see evidence that an intelligence, no matter how smart, could reason to the fundamental properties of neutrinos without massive physical real world experiments and piles of observational data.
Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I wonder what kind of advances are needed for AGI. 1. Biological brains are non-differentiable spiking networks much more complicated than backpropagated ANNs. 2. Ion channels may or may not be affected by quantum effects. 3. The search space is huge (but organisms aren't optimal and natural selection is probably local search) 4. If it took ~3.8b years t…
Like what is language, what is intelligence? Some of the smartest linguists and philosophers would proudly declare they have no fucking clue.
Making Alexa turn on the lights or using Google Translate are cool party tricks though.
Idc how many Doom games ya made, but I’m sorry to say a bunch of software engineers aren’t gonna crack this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks Rodents can't play Go or a lot of other humanly-meaningful tasks. We don't need to build an artificial cell. A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together, this is as far from efficient design as can be. The same way we don't build two-legged airplanes, we don't need anything that's close to the wet spiky…
AlphaZero has coded all the rules for the respective three games, they do a tree search and their neural network output layer has exactly n neurons for max(n) possible moves. Although it's impressive they don't teach it heuristics and strategies, it's a very specific task. What about pigeons predicting breast cancer with 99% probability, rats learning to drive cars, monkeys building tools? Rodents stand a bigger chan…
AlphaZero is also capable of playing Chess, Shogi and Go at a super-super-human.