Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 930 posts

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

#501

Post by knowThySelfx »

keanzu wrote: post #299
DavidSJ wrote: post #166

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.

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

"Researchers in England may have finally settled the centuries-old debate over who gets credit for the creation of calculus.

For years, English scientist Isaac Newton and German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz both claimed credit for inventing the mathematical system sometime around the end of the seventeenth century.

Now, a team from the universities of Manchester and Exeter says it knows where the true credit lies — and it's with someone else completely.

The "Kerala school," a little-known group of scholars and mathematicians in fourteenth century India, identified the "infinite series" — one of the basic components of calculus — around 1350."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/calculus-created-in-india...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School_of_Astronomy_and...

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

#502

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

anonytrary wrote: post #460
carlosdp wrote: post #68

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…

AI today is comparable to physics in the 1700s. Back then, it was a bunch of people tinkering with prisms and apples. Today, it's a bunch of people tinkering with hyperparameters. I suspect that we know as little about AGI today as someone in the 1700s knew about QFT. Not only did they not know about QFT, but they didn't even know that they didn't know it.

Wouldn't it be fun if the next Newton turns out to be the guy who wrote Doom and other FPS, games that were blamed for any kind of surge of violence until the GTA games show up?

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

#503

Post by dnh44 »

copperx wrote: post #442
guramarx11 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iirc in a recent talk with Joe Rogan, John mentioned something about robots doing judo...

Why do people of such intelligence subject themselves to being interviewed by dumb-as-a-rock Joe Rogan? 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.

His interviews are not adversarial and he is not judgemental towards his guests. He isn't there to put his guests on the spot. He isn't there to get a juicy soundbite taken out of context. He allows his guests to speak for as long as they want. And his guests appear to enjoy themselves.

These things are all true even if the guest or their ideas are extremely controversial. Maybe Joe Rogan is just smart in a way that's different to the way that you are smart.

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

#504

Post by laichzeit0 »

braindeath wrote: post #301
carlosdp wrote: post #68

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…

> especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics I don't put learning state of the art ML past Carmack, at all. However, does ML tech of today lead to general AI? It's a strong assumption.

Whatever the solution is to AGI, fundamentally it will still have to be describable in the language of mathematics (and stochastics is still mathematics).

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

#505

Post by Kiro »

ekianjo wrote: post #345
oarabbus_ wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://qz.com/1739575/strong-oculus-quest-sales-boost-faceb...

180 000 units of VR headsets is pure pocket money for Facebook. And that does not even register in any kind of hardware sales charts. PC sales are more than 300 millions per year, and smartphones sales are more than 1.5 billions units per year. VR headsets don't sell at all.

You're missing the point. We've entered a new era of VR with the Quest. Any numbers we've seen before is irrelevant.

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

#507

Post by p1esk »

rfhjt wrote: post #487
mr_mitm wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating papers is research. I don't understand why you dismiss all papers as pointless.

The need to generate publishable papers means that a researcher can only participate in activity that leads to such a paper. He can't try to work on that idea for 5 years, because if no big papers follow, he's toast /he'd probably lose funding long before that).

You have to earn the right to work on your idea for 5 years and get paid. Otherwise we would be funding all kind of crackpots. First you demonstrate you're a good researcher by producing good results. Then you can work on whatever you feel like (either by getting hired at places like DeepMind, or by finding funding sources that want to pay for what you want to work on).

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

#508

Post by codingslave »

emmanuel_1234 wrote: post #502
anonytrary wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI today is comparable to physics in the 1700s. Back then, it was a bunch of people tinkering with prisms and apples. Today, it's a bunch of people tinkering with hyperparameters. I suspect that we know as little about AGI today as someone in the 1700s knew about QFT. Not only did they not know about QFT, but they didn't even know that they didn't know it.

Wouldn't it be fun if the next Newton turns out to be the guy who wrote Doom and other FPS, games that were blamed for any kind of surge of violence until the GTA games show up?

Yeah, weird to think that todays newton could be seen on Joe Rogans Podcast talking about the future of gaming

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

#510

Post by Ultimatt »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #504
braindeath wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics I don't put learning state of the art ML past Carmack, at all. However, does ML tech of today lead to general AI? It's a strong assumption.

Whatever the solution is to AGI, fundamentally it will still have to be describable in the language of mathematics (and stochastics is still mathematics).

I dunno. You're limiting your thought to computer science. I think it's more likely at this point in time biotech will produce an AGI, likely by accident. Worse one that competes directly with us for resource. We dont have a great mathematical description of our own intelligence, doing it for a tricked out slimemould would be just as hard.
Post reply on HN