31–40 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been saying AI won't be Skynet launching the nukes, it will be a corporation maximizing productivity with complete disregard for human needs heh
In a free market, a corporation has to please its customers in order to maximize profit. For example, Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is difficult to imagine anything resembling a "general" intelligence that isn't attached to a life-form[...] How is that argument any stronger than these ones that (non-animal) heavier than air flight is impossible? https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/ I think these are actually stronger arguments, because I can think of at least three very least significant material-science advantages that birds hav…
Yes, I realize that the phrase "difficult to imagine" is fun to pounce on. There's a big difference between "flight" and "general intelligence"; namely that the former is like Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography and the latter is... not. Anyways, maybe what I'm suggesting is that if you can point to something and say "that is a (artificial?) general intelligence", then I suspect you will also feel comp…
That's because there won't be AGI in my or my children's lifetime. We are successfully solving some perceptual problems now, but cognition is so far out of reach, nobody has even started working on it yet.
There are a lot of people in this thread who seem to be very confident and skeptical of the author's position. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to try the exercise he challenges in the article? Please post your nomination for what’s the least impressive accomplishment that you are very confident cannot be done in the next two years. We can check back in 2022 and see how we did!
The decisive moment for AI will come when a program can run a corporation better than humans. That's not an unreasonable near-term achievement. A corporation is a system for maximizing a well-defined metric. Maximizing a well-defined metric is what machine learning systems do well. If a system listened in on all communication within a company, for traffic, sentiment analysis, who responds to whom how fast, and what c…
Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
As soon as an AI CEO starts trying to maximize a single, well-defined metric, the humans working there will start finding ways to satisfy that metric at the expense of everything else. There is no single mesaure, no matter how well-defined, that will remain a good measure in perpetuity as long as humans are capable of interpreting it in the light of their own self-interest.
That's because there won't be AGI in my or my children's lifetime. We are successfully solving some perceptual problems now, but cognition is so far out of reach, nobody has even started working on it yet.
We went from discovering fission in 1938 to building the bomb in 1945. I think it's entirely possible that AGI won't happen in the next century or maybe even ever, but history is filled with people who say "this can't happen" and are proven horribly wrong.
You don't need a fire alarm for something that doesn't exist and is complete science fiction at this point. We would be better off building asteroid defences as long as we are talking about far-fetched threats to humanity.
I mean, general intelligence exists and is not science fiction. I assume I'm responding to one. What should be the first sign that it's no longer science fiction, and it's acceptable to start making a plan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an extensive reply to Chollet's essay, also by the author of "There's No Fire Alarm": https://intelligence.org/2017/12/06/chollet/ > ...some systems function very well in a broad variety of structured low-entropy environments. E.g. the human brain functions much better than other primate brains in an extremely broad set of environments, including many that natural selection did not explicitly optimize for. We…
Still plenty of time for GDP to turn into a sigmoid
There are a lot of people in this thread who seem to be very confident and skeptical of the author's position. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to try the exercise he challenges in the article? Please post your nomination for what’s the least impressive accomplishment that you are very confident cannot be done in the next two years. We can check back in 2022 and see how we did!
Successfully respond to my basic questions for help at my bank website.
“Intelligence is situational — there is no such thing as general intelligence. Your brain is one piece in a broader system which includes your body, your environment, other humans, and culture as a whole. […] Currently, our environment, not our brain, is acting as the bottleneck to our intelligence.” “Human intelligence is largely externalized, contained not in our brain but in our civilization. We are our tools — ou…
Not sure about that. But certainly human intelligence is far more general than goldfish intelligence similar to how a turing machine is more general than a finite state automata.
> Your brain is one piece in a broader system which includes your body, your environment, other humans, and culture as a whole.
I could lose an arm and still be as intelligent. Stephen Hawking lost his ability to walk and he was still as intelligent. Turing could move to Princeton from england and still maintain his intelligence. Sure your body, environment, culture, etc helps you develop and informs who are, but certainly it is the brain that ultimately matters.
> “Recursively self-improving systems, because of contingent bottlenecks, diminishing returns, and counter-reactions […], cannot achieve exponential progress in practice. Empirically, they tend to display linear or sigmoidal improvement.”
But evolution and societies doesn't work in a "recursively self-improving" manner. I'm rather partial to the idea of punctuated equilibrium. Momentum builds and we have a sudden exponential progress until we arrive at a new normal. Evolution and societal progress isn't that of continuous linear or exponential growth. Rather it's a series of peaks and valleys.
> “Recursive intelligence expansion is already happening — at the level of our civilization. It will keep happening in the age of AI, and it progresses at a roughly linear pace.“
I suppose but historically this isn't true. No human society or civilization progressed at a roughly linear pace. There are periods of stagnation or even decay followed by burst of creativity and progress. Otherwise, all societies/civilizations would remain relatively equal to each other.
How does linear progress explain the sudden rise of europe in the last 500 years to dominate the globe? Or the sudden rise of french as lingua franca and the equally sudden rise of english? The sudden economic growth with the discovery of oil. Or the sudden burst of human population?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-since-10...