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

621–630 of 930 posts

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

#621

Post by sildur »

noir-york wrote: post #616
have_faith wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like an image classifier that can identify an apple, but has no idea what an apple is Kind of like humans then.

A child picks up an apple but doesn't know what an apple "is". It doesn't even have the vocabulary to describe it. As adults we know what an apple is because we understand it as a concept, the ideal "apple", and can manipulate the concept into areas way outside the original concept (say, the phrase "apple of my eye").

Yes, but you did not manipulate the concept. You did not invent that phrase, but simply learned its meaning. A machine can do that.

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

#622

Post by Mtinie »

jack_pp wrote: post #591
MaximumYComb wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You mean the brain has evolved over millennia to model the psychics of the world and specialize in catching and throwing things

Absolutely. It also requires more than the evolutionary adaptations to do it. The skill requires the catching individual to have practiced the specific motions enough times previously to become proficient to the point it becomes second nature.

Compare what happens during a practice game of catch between six year old, first time Little Leaguers vs. MLB starters.

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

#623

Post by pingyong »

simonh wrote: post #596
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…

I don't think that approach is going to work. For any clearly bounded and delineated task, such as a game, the most optimal, lowest energy and lowest cost solution is not AGI but a custom tuned specialist solver. This is why I don't think Deep Blue or Alphago are paths towards AGI. They are just very highly advanced single-task solvers. Now Alphago and it's implementation framework are much more sophisticated than De…

I think if you have a framework that can produce arbitrary single-task solvers (which AlphaZero can't yet), you would have something indistinguishable from AGI, since communication between single-task solvers is also kinda just a single-task solver.

It's certainly not the most efficient way to use our current hardware, and it's not clear to me how big some of these neural nets would have to be, but if we had computers with a trillion times the memory capacity and speed, IMO it'd certainly work on some level.

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

#624

Post by jaster »

omalleyt wrote: post #576
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

I missed your post and I made a similar answer.

However the idea may still be applicable if the environments votes can weighted, based on their relevance to specific domains.

(The same way optimization techniques are still useful despite the NFTL)

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

#625

Post by loquor »

lawlessone wrote: post #607
simonh wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that approach is going to work. For any clearly bounded and delineated task, such as a game, the most optimal, lowest energy and lowest cost solution is not AGI but a custom tuned specialist solver. This is why I don't think Deep Blue or Alphago are paths towards AGI. They are just very highly advanced single-task solvers. Now Alphago and it's implementation framework are much more sophisticated than De…

The only way i think it can be done is simulated evolution.. be that simulated evolution of neural nets or something else. As others have mentioned here though.. this becomes horrifying if we've created something sentient to kill in games or enslave.

> simulated evolution

Isn't that what genetic algorithms are?

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

#626

Post by [deleted] »

sildur wrote: post #621
noir-york wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child picks up an apple but doesn't know what an apple "is". It doesn't even have the vocabulary to describe it. As adults we know what an apple is because we understand it as a concept, the ideal "apple", and can manipulate the concept into areas way outside the original concept (say, the phrase "apple of my eye").

Yes, but you did not manipulate the concept. You did not invent that phrase, but simply learned its meaning. A machine can do that.

[deleted]

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

#627

Post by Mtinie »

username90 wrote: post #604
toxik wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true, human beings plan ahead when opening doors more than many things — should I try to open this bathroom door or will that make it awkward if it’s locked and I have to explain that to my coworker afterwards? Should I keep this door open for a while so the guy behind me gets through as well? Not to mention that people typically route plan at doorways. Doors are basically planning triggers more than many…

Horses don't plan though, and they are much better than computers at a lot of tasks. If we can make a computer as smart as a horse, then we can likely also make it as smart as a human by bolting some planning logic on top of that.

“Horses don’t plan though[...]”

Can you expand on this statement? While I have no way to “debug” a horse’s brain in real-time, my experiences suggest they absolutely conduct complex decision-making while engaging in activities.

Two examples which immediately come to mind where I believe I see evidence of “if this, then that” planning behavior:

1. Equestrian jumping events; horses often balk before a hurdle

2. Herds of wild horses reacting to perceived threats and then using topographic and geographic features to escape the situation.

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

#628

Post by codeulike »

lawlessone wrote: post #607
simonh wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that approach is going to work. For any clearly bounded and delineated task, such as a game, the most optimal, lowest energy and lowest cost solution is not AGI but a custom tuned specialist solver. This is why I don't think Deep Blue or Alphago are paths towards AGI. They are just very highly advanced single-task solvers. Now Alphago and it's implementation framework are much more sophisticated than De…

The only way i think it can be done is simulated evolution.. be that simulated evolution of neural nets or something else. As others have mentioned here though.. this becomes horrifying if we've created something sentient to kill in games or enslave.

I've been thinking for a while that use of AI in games might become a civil rights frontier in about 30 to 50 years or so

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

#629

Post by somewhereoutth »

Mathematically speaking, current computers run in discrete (integer/countable) space, and the human brain exists in continuous (real/uncountable) space. Cantor showed that continuous space is larger than, and thus cannot be represented in, discrete space (via diagonal method). I suggest that AGI and consciousness lie in continuous space, and thus are unreachable with our current discrete computation model, regardless of how sophisticated we make it. There exists a cardinality barrier.

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

#630

Post by sebsito »

First of all we should at least have a common definition what intelligence even is.

Even then I'm not sure we'd know what General Intelligence would be because all we know is Human Intelligence or maybe lower level Animal Intelligences where the problem solving mechanism seems to depend on biological body and it's form.

Humans navigate the world with automatic impulses which we evolved over time to deal with way too much signals from the environment so we can filter and react only to those important.

We can then use consciousness to slowly map new impulses as the environment changes and go back to autopilot for most of the time.

What if our intelligence isn't general but it's just enough to navigate the world we can perceive with out senses? What if we'll never be able to understand e.g. the quantum theory (or at least the part of a world experience which we call this way)? If there's is superset of out intelligence or different sets of intelligences which we just don't undestand?

We think that our problem solving can take on any problem but maybe we're only taking on the problems we can take on, limited to our perception of reality which can be limited?

So I think instead of calling it AGI the name should be more like Artificial Human-like Intelligence.

Post reply on HN