441–450 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current ML technology probably has little or nothing to do with whatever technology will eventually be needed to produce true AGI.
And programmers are probably not the ones who will come up with AI ideas. I'd bet on mathematicians that prove those Fermat's or ABC theorems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am thinking the guy that made Doom is the guy that's making SkyNet and I'm totally cool with that.
iirc in a recent talk with Joe Rogan, John mentioned something about robots doing judo...
I must admit that I often watch his interviews because he invites interesting people, but I can't help but cringe when Rogan gives his opinions.
This is encouraging. If you're going to work on artificial general intelligence, a reasonable context in which to work on it is game NPCs. They have to operate in a world, interact with others, survive, and accomplish goals. Simulator technology is now good enough that you can do quite realistic worlds. Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Robotics has the same issue…
Yeah I believe in this game / simulated world NPC idea too. To get the kind of complexity we want we either need sensors in the real world or interfacing in a virtual world that humans bring complexity to (probably both -- the humans are part of the sensing technology to start). Things like AlphaZero etc. got good cuz they had a simulatable model of the world (just a chess board + next state function in their case).…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, a whole uninterrupted week of highly focussed work can get you pretty far (considering that you have the necessary background, which Carmack has, i.e. related to linear algebra, stats, programming, etc.)
Yes, but let's not assume the the hundreds of other scientists in the field have just been twiddling their thumbs the whole time. It is preposterous to assume that someone largely new to a highly specialized field can somehow start pushing the envelope within a week. Yes, JC is nothing short of brilliant, but these sort of assumptions just set him up to disappoint and is also highly unfair to all the other hardworkin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I believe in this game / simulated world NPC idea too. To get the kind of complexity we want we either need sensors in the real world or interfacing in a virtual world that humans bring complexity to (probably both -- the humans are part of the sensing technology to start). Things like AlphaZero etc. got good cuz they had a simulatable model of the world (just a chess board + next state function in their case).…
I've long taken the position that intelligence is mostly about getting through the next 10-30 seconds of life without screwing up. Not falling down, not running into stuff, not getting hurt, not breaking things, making some progress on the current task. Common sense. Most of animal brains, and a large fraction of the human brain, is devoted to managing that. On top of that is some kind of coarse planner giving goals…
There are counterexamples, such as AlphaGo which is all about planning and deep thinking. It also combines learning with evolution (genetic selection).
This is encouraging. If you're going to work on artificial general intelligence, a reasonable context in which to work on it is game NPCs. They have to operate in a world, interact with others, survive, and accomplish goals. Simulator technology is now good enough that you can do quite realistic worlds. Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Robotics has the same issue…
Yeah I believe in this game / simulated world NPC idea too. To get the kind of complexity we want we either need sensors in the real world or interfacing in a virtual world that humans bring complexity to (probably both -- the humans are part of the sensing technology to start). Things like AlphaZero etc. got good cuz they had a simulatable model of the world (just a chess board + next state function in their case).…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there are many researchers in AGI. AFAIK it’s kind of a joke field because no one has any clue how to approach true AGI. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
People have approaches. There's no end to half-assed "I thought about this for 10 seconds, how hard could it be!" solutions, really old approaches from decades ago where the brightest academics thought they could lick the problem over a summer, and some new public or hidden approaches that might be promising but (I can't know of course) I predict will still look a lot different than the final thing. I think a big rea…
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.
What is actually being argued is the cult worship of a particular engineer. I am against cult worship, so find the fact that Carmack is entering this space simply not news worthy. Yet here it is. Do I wish him the best of luck and hope he cracks the problem? Of course, all the same I would wish that of an upstart PhD student. Yet, the announcements of a brilliant PhD student attending a university to work on AGI is s…
You were always free to skip over or flag this submission and move on.