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

571–580 of 930 posts

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

#571

Post by buboard »

azth wrote: post #256
buboard wrote: post #147

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…

> A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together Can't tell if sarcasm.

carbon chemistry + thermodynamics

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

#572

Post by mkl »

DavidSJ wrote: post #395
lonelappde wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Can you expand on why you think his Wikipedia article refutes what I said?

(Not OP) I don't think it does. It backs you up (barring quibbles on what you mean by "most"; years active or hours spent): "Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of alchemy and biblical chronology".

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

#573

Post by saagarjha »

Ultimatt wrote: post #510
laichzeit0 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think it's more likely at this point in time biotech will produce an AGI, likely by accident.

Does a living thing count as AGI? In that case, I'd say that most parents are quite good at creating AGIs ;)

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

#574

Post by arcturus17 »

Jaruzel wrote: post #518

Carmack's post in full: Starting this week, I’m moving to a "Consulting CTO” position with Oculus. I will still have a voice in the development work, but it will only be consuming a modest slice of my time. As for what I am going to be doing with the rest of my time: When I think back over everything I have done across games, aerospace, and VR, I have always felt that I had at least a vague “line of sight” to the sol…

Thanks it didn’t so much save me as it enabled me, since I have it blocked.

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

#575

Post by socceroos »

defterGoose wrote: post #448
nikki93 wrote: post #422

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).…

Perhaps the first sentient program will be born in an MMORPG?

Ah, I knew anime would be useful someday

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

#576

Post by omalleyt »

xamuel wrote: post #319

I've been dabbling in AGI and it seems like the field has a lot of low-hanging fruit. I'll bet Carmack can offer some significant contributions. I'll take an opportunity to plug a paper I recently published on comparing relative intelligence. The punchline will illuminate the low-hangingness of the fruit in this field. Suppose X and Y are AGIs and you want to know which is more intelligent. For any interactive reward…

Unfortunately, your intelligent agents qualify as optimization algorithms and therefore the No Free Lunch Theorem applies:

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/papers/78.pdf

I.e. across the space of all possible environments, all agents perform equally well

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

#577

Post by 0-_-0 »

fastball wrote: post #535
Animats wrote: post #313

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…

Sooooo, The Talos Principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talos_Principle

Puzzle game with a great story. I recommend it to the HN people.

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

#578

Post by saagarjha »

MetalGuru wrote: post #451
copperx wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seriously. That guy is a stoned idiot who massively overestimates the insight of his high ramblings.

I don't think people listen to the show to listen to him, and he probably knows that. He does, however, seem to be reasonably good at getting his guests to talk about interesting things.

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

#579

Post by MaximumYComb »

Animats wrote: post #437
nikki93 wrote: post #422

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…

I was thinking about the manipulation issue tonight. I'd been throwing a tennis ball in the pool with my kids and I realised how instinctual my ability to catch was. A ball leaves my kids hands and I move my hand to a position, fingers just wide enough for a ball, and catch it. All of it happens in a fraction of a second.

The human brain can model the physics of a ball in flight, accurately, and quickly. As the ball touches the finger tips it makes the smallest adjustments, again in tiny fractions of a second

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

#580

Post by [deleted] »

pyentropy wrote: post #163
buboard wrote: post #147

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN