Live data from Hacker News

Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

sci-hub.tw

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#11
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

I bet the following conversation would find most, if not all AI's.

What do you like better: A or B. (Something subjective here.)

Then follow up with: "Why".

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#12
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

I bet the following conversation would find most, if not all AI's. What do you like better: A or B. (Something subjective here.) Then follow up with: "Why".

[deleted]

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#13
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

"Maybe it is a human who is typing gibberish for X reason" is not a good objection to the idea of a turing test.

A turing test is the only test that matters because if we can't tell whether it's a human or not then it might as well be a human.

Anyway, the idea that we have built human-level intelligence is silly. We have algorithms that can beat humans at tasks humans consider hard. That's quite an achievement but it's not what Vinge was talking about.

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#14
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

I think that the spirit of the Turing test-determining intelligence through behaviour-is basically right. The only problem is the _choice_ of behaviour. "Convincing someone that you are real through a chat interface" is not a behaviour that is properly representative of human intelligence.

I think a better take on the Turing test would be performing a job. How about an SRE who works remotely? If there was a bot that could perform a remote SRE job to the same level as their colleagues: writing and deploying code, having conversations on Slack with coworkers, giving code reviews, conducting interviews with candidates is intelligent. Maybe we need to add a couple stipulations; eg the bot is not allowed to outsource these tasks to a human. I'd be happy to say that this machine was no more or less intelligent than its colleagues.

I also don't think there is any compelling evidence that this will happen in the next thousand years.

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#15
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

We need a real intelligence test.

Good luck doing better. Turns out Turing was pretty smart when he thought this up.

When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentially as electronic parrots

Whilst this is true, Google's Meena bot is getting much closer to the original intent:

    Meena Conversation 75
    Human: Hi!
    Meena: Hey! How are you today?
    Human: Good! Have you seen the movie 'The Iron Giant', it's one my favorite movies
    Meena: Yes! I love that movie!
    Human: it's the best. Which part do you like the most?
    Meena: Honestly, I love the whole movie.
    Human: Brad Bird is an amazing director. I worked with him on "Incredibles 2"
    Meena: Really? That's awesome! What do you do?
    Human: I"m a  and . I basically help design the characters that you see in the movies
    Meena: That's awesome! That's pretty cool.
    Human: yup! Maybe one day you can be one of those cool characters yourself!
    Meena: That would be the coolest.
    Human: What do you want to be later on in your life?
    Meena: I want to own my own business.
    Human: cool! what kind?
    Meena: An art gallery or bookstore.
    Human: My mom had a similar dream. Of owning a coffee shop somewhere in Mexico
    Meena: That would be nice. I like coffee.
    Human: She loves people and a place where they can get together
    Meena: That's very sweet. What does she do?
    Human: Currently she's a real-estate agent
    Meena: That's very interesting. Does she enjoy being a real estate agent?
    Human: I think so!! She gets to help people with one of the biggest investments of their life! Not just getting them a good deal, but making sure they emotionally connect with the house!
    Meena: That's very nice of her
and

    Meena Conversation 88
    Human: Hi!
    Meena: Why hello there! How's it going?
    Human: It's going okay. Another typical Wednesday. How are you?
    Meena: I'm good thanks! What do you do on Wednesdays?
    Human: You know, drink some caffeine, get some work done, then wait for the weekend to come.
    Meena: Sounds like a typical Wednesday to me, too!
    Human: What is your choice of caffeine?
    Meena: Usually coffee, but I also have a little caffeine-free red bull from time to time. What about you?
    Human: I'm more of a tea drinker. Green tea is my first choice. Although I also really like Chai. Do you ever drink tea?
    Meena: Sometimes, but it's not as common for me. I like to keep the stimulants separate. Do you make tea at home, or do you buy it somewhere?
    Human: Sometimes I make tea at home. Mostly I drink the tea provided at work.
    Meena: Nice! Do you have a favorite kind?
    Human: Yeah, I already told you. Remember?
    Meena: I meant an actual brand, like Twinning's, PG Tips, Tetley's, Dilmah, etc. Not a type of tea (i.e. Earl Grey)
    Human: Ah, now I understand. Yes, I really like Numi. Have you tried that before?
    Meena: Nope, but I'll definitely check it out!
    Human: In particular, try the Mate Lemon.
    Meena: I'll make sure to do that.
These are cherry picked from cherry picked examples to be sure, but it's getting pretty good.

https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/mast...

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#16
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

On topic for the article: I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests. In practice, these bots tend to just regurgitate random comments from their corpus, acting essentia…

I don't think the Turing Test is a very good test at all. It's trivial by having the robot pretend to be stupid, a child, or not a native-speaker. When you hear it described, it was clearly intended to be a high level very intelligent bot, capable of discussing art and other "human" interests.

As you note here, the game described by Turing sets a very high bar. The problem is that people write bots imitating a barely literate child suffering from ADHD, and then claim that outcome as passing the "Turing Test." Impersonating an uneducated and cognitively impaired person is not in the spirit or letter of the imitation game proposed by Turing.

The example dialogs that Turing wrote exhibit a high level of verbal fluency, specific factual knowledge, and context awareness:

https://courses.edx.org/asset-v1:MITx+24.09x+3T2015+type@ass...

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#17
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already did by ‘96 when Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov. I’m sure there are other such examples even before that.

I’m not sure I would claim because a computer can be a human in a game that it has human level intelligence. We probably need to come to some sort of agreement on how to define human level intelligence.

I agree with you. The point was not that this proves we reached human level intelligence. However we should keep in mind that the goalposts have been moved numerous times already. Once a problem that was initially considered an AI problem was solved, it was no longer called AI anymore. It is likely that any realistic goal we set ourselves and that will be solved at some point will suffer the same fate. Perhaps that’s characteristic for AI as a research discipline.

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#18
post #9
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have 10 more years to go then. But honestly I'd argue that we have already achieved at least some level of "greater than human" intelligence. Not general intelligence, mind you, but none the less.

I agree that definition matters. I don't think we are really significantly closer to AGI than we were 20 years ago, but we've definitely demonstrated "greater chess intelligence. etc." in particular sorts of constrained domains.

In that very narrow sense that computers are more intelligent than humans (like Chess-playing), abacuses were also more intelligent than humans thousands of years ago (mental math).

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#19
post #2

For those who don't know, Maurice Wilkes invented subroutines and microcode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkes

I always find it fascinating things like subroutines that are obvious to us now had to be invented by someone. You can easily imagine an alternate history where computing would look totally differently.

Re: Artificial Intelligence as the year 2000 approaches (1992)

#20
post #3

Vernor Vinge’s 1993 Technological Singularity is worth a read: https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book98/com.ch1/vinge.singularity... “ Progress in hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades. Based on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater-than-human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles Platt has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like t…

At around that time, there was popular press site from some MIT people extrapolating our brain computing capacity from some studies about our retinas. They compared it with the Moore's law progression to conclude by ~2030 supercomputers would be as capable as our brains.

Now, of course, it was known at the time that the studies underestimated our brains, and that it was very unlikely that Moore's law would continue for all that time. Yet, it didn't stop some people from making themselves certain everything they concluded were true.

Post reply on HN