391–400 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the fact that there's so much low hanging fruit is kind of the point. AGI as a field is still in its infancy. It's pure research and will be for a long time.
So if you want "Carmack's Theorem" or "Noelsusman's Theorem" to appear in high school math textbooks 500 years from now, this is the best time to jump in. (Assuming there are still textbooks 500 years from now.) "Doom" probably won't be remembered by then.
Given that DOOM has been ported to virtually every platform known to man, I’d argue the opposite.
Besides, in many instances, art survives while knowledge doesn’t. I suppose the digital age is different, but you never know!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take this as nothing more than my subjective opinion: I believe that humans don't have GI but HI - we have a "world-view" that is very idiosyncratic to being human, which is essentially heuristics all the way down - in other words, I don't believe there is a magical novel concept that explains HI, but that it is a collection of party tricks that evolved over time, i.e. hacky engineered system.
I don't see why that's not GI. That HI enables us to do incredible things, far beyond what we evolved to do (we evolved to hunt and fuck and exist in small groups, not to do quantum mechanics).
AGI is not an engineering problem but a research problem. John Carmack is good at putting stuff together but how good he is at coming up with novel concepts for an open research problem remains to be seen. Even the rocketry example that is hailed here as a success mostly wasn't. That doesn't make me happy, it would have been far nicer if Armadillo had succeeded, more competition in that space is better. But for all t…
Please take this as nothing more than my subjective opinion: I believe that humans don't have GI but HI - we have a "world-view" that is very idiosyncratic to being human, which is essentially heuristics all the way down - in other words, I don't believe there is a magical novel concept that explains HI, but that it is a collection of party tricks that evolved over time, i.e. hacky engineered system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
This doesn't surprise me at all. 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). (edit: I'm not claiming he's a field expert in a week guys, just that he can probably learn the basics pretty fast, especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics) As recent as his last Oculus Connect keynote, he exto…
To be honest anyone who has a very good working knowledge of Linear Algebra can learn much of ML-math in a day. There really isn't anything mathematically super-sophisticated that is in popular use today.
Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread arguing whether or not John Carmack has the right skills to help AGI, or about the specifics of his knowledge. Do you all realize you're arguing about nothing? Good for him for doing something he seems excited about. Maybe we should all stop gossiping and go do something we're excited about too.
Do you all realize you're arguing about nothing?"
Absolutely. I should mention why. AGI is an open field. AGI is opennest of open fields. Advances in deep learning tell quite little about what AGI will look like. We don't know if AGI will be a hundred incremental innovations from deep learning, ten deep advances from deep learning or five incredible advances with only a slight relation to deep learning. We don't know if it will just appear when 100 super-computers are hooked together or if a genius at home on their laptop could cobble it together. Sure, you could extrapolate and say compute has mattered more than theory, so far. But you could also say impressive things have been done but they haven't approached robust generality and there's something we're missing. Pick the approach but then you'll have to see if it's possible.
Etc.
i say this with respect and humility, but i am very surprised at the naivete with which John addressed the subject of AGI. he is so casual about it -- not only the idea of working on it but also the idea of it existing at all. he seems oblivious to the gravity of that discovery. it is not just "very valuable," it will be earth shattering and probably wipe out humanity. and its his side-project. and his son will help…
i say this with respect and humility, but i am very surprised at the naivete with which John addressed the subject of AGI. he is so casual about it -- not only the idea of working on it but also the idea of it existing at all. he seems oblivious to the gravity of that discovery. it is not just "very valuable," it will be earth shattering and probably wipe out humanity. and its his side-project. and his son will help…
You are saying "probably wipe out humanity" is a bad thing ? I know of several million species that would strongly disagree. Especially if AGIv1 decides to tune the genetics of say most mammals to append 'sapient' to the end of their species name. Perhaps more constructively consider that AGI is simply the next iteration of 'humanity', yea sure the old versions are redundant anarchisms and apart from some living rese…
But I suspect that "intelligence" is not so structured and reducible as we would like .. it somehow just works.