Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

facebook.com

291–300 of 930 posts

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#291
post #270

He invented modern graphics as a practical problem by himself as the sole researcher. Given the tools at the time that may have been a harder problem.

Yes, a practical problem. The math behind computer graphics (i.e. optics) had been around hundreds of years. The trick was using numerical analysis to optimize and approximate on limited hardware.

We don't have the laws of AGI like we had the laws of optics (Asimov notwithstanding.) Tons of research effort was poured into the wrong avenues in vision (hand-tuned HoG, transforms, optical flow analysis) and ML (support vector machines, computational learning theory) until a chain of breakthroughs hit on the right mathematical approach for vision and supervised learning more generally.

We have some mathematical approaches to try with AGI (e.g. policy optimization/max-Q in reinforcement learning), but they equations are plagued with fundamental issues (e.g. reward sparcity, easily-gamed artificial objectives.)

Carmack optimized some very difficult equations when he worked on graphics, but in AGI we still don't have the right equations to optimize.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#292
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are few AI researchers (maybe around 5 or so) that could credibly claim technical accomplishments of any sort in the same ballpark as Carmack's. People with this level of track record should not be underestimated, there aren't many of them out there... They matter.

Carmack has had a lot of commercial success, which is great and I value his creativity in the space but working on a research question that is about ten paradigm shifts away is a different task than putting in hard labour to build games.

And maybe the output is he helps bring about one of those ten paradigm shifts, which would be a wonderful success. He didn’t say “solve” it, he said work on it.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#294

Humans optimize for activating the opioid receptor. These receptors are distributed all over the brain and tied into all sorts of subtle neural networks. That's why opioid addicts don't do much when they're high. As far as the entire structure of the brain is concerned, an opioid addict's brain is done optimizing and the fitness function is pegged at 1. I think an AGI will end up being like an AI that plays the Sims…

I must be doing a poor job at being a human, given that I have passed the opportunity to activate my opioid receptors several times in my life so far (leftovers from surgeries).

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#295

What's a useful definition of what AGI is? If you have a computer that does some clever AI stuff, what criteria do you look for to decide that it has a general intelligence?

AGI means it can solve any problem posed to it and interface with any sensory and motor peripheral.

not every problem. Not expected to e.g. solve the halting problem.

If it can solve every problem that a human can solve, then it would be AGI. If it can solve every problem that a somewhat unintelligent human can solve, I think that would still count as AGI.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#296
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carmack is someone who has proven to be an almost unequalled productivity machine when working on medium-difficulty problems... Now, for the first time, we'll see if his approach to problem solving can also work on a truly difficult problem. I agree it's very much an open question.

Nobody will want to work in a research program under this guy. He's just way too mean, and being mean is a no to researchers. Also, as other commenters have mentioned, this is a demotion.

I hadn't been aware he was mean. What are examples of this meanness?

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#297

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…

> None of his other contributions will matter

I don't think anything can top Doom.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#298
post #157
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes an outside perspective is just the ticket for getting past roadblocks that've stumped the experts. If any outsider could do this, it's John.

Sometimes, but mostly not.

But John is not most men.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#299
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many historical figures went through the same thing? Who do we know for their contributions to field X, when 99% of their life was spent contributing to field Y?

Isaac Newton spent most of his life pursuing alchemy and obscure theological ideas, and found it a real nuisance whenever anyone pestered him about math or physics.

Isaac Newton is considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of all time and is regarded as the "Father of Calculus".

"Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time when Newton lived, what he has done is much the better part." - Gottfried Leibniz

http://www.fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#300
post #209

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…

We still haven’t solved language nor intelligence. 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.

> Some of the smartest linguists and philosophers would proudly declare they have no fucking clue.

to worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance” - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x4dG4GhpZH2hgz59x/joy-in-the...

Having no clue is not something to be proud (or ashamed) of.

> I’m sorry to say a bunch of software engineers aren’t gonna crack this one.

Doesn’t sound like you’re at all sorry, it sounds like you’re thrilling in putting these uppity tryhards in their place for daring to attack something you hold sacred.

Post reply on HN