There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#71

Post by SCdF » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 8:54 AM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #15

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!

Build a microwave that heats food evenly. I mean this probably doesn't involve AI or anything, but it would be nice!

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#72

Post by taberiand » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 8:55 AM UTC

nopinsight wrote: post #68

Our civilization and ability to dominate over other animals largely exist because of human intelligence. An AGI could be a great partner toward unprecedented prosperity, but an AGI not fully aligned with human values may also spur a major catastrophe. Two promising approaches toward AI Safety I have encountered: * Make sure the AI is not too certain of itself and will always defer to humans as the final judge. https:…

I'm not sure what the unique existential threat that AGI poses is - humans are more than capable of spurring major catastrophe all by themselves.

I say we take a chance; if it doesn't work out well we are probably going to stuff it all up without the help of an AGI anyway, and at least something intelligent will remain if it decides to kill all humans.

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#73

Post by nopinsight » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 8:59 AM UTC

taberiand wrote: post #72

nopinsight wrote: post #68

Our civilization and ability to dominate over other animals largely exist because of human intelligence. An AGI could be a great partner toward unprecedented prosperity, but an AGI not fully aligned with human values may also spur a major catastrophe. Two promising approaches toward AI Safety I have encountered: * Make sure the AI is not too certain of itself and will always defer to humans as the final judge. https:…

I'm not sure what the unique existential threat that AGI poses is - humans are more than capable of spurring major catastrophe all by themselves. I say we take a chance; if it doesn't work out well we are probably going to stuff it all up without the help of an AGI anyway, and at least something intelligent will remain if it decides to kill all humans.

From the article, would you say we shouldn’t prepare for anything if we suspect that a horde of advanced alien space ships may be landing on earth in a few decades (and possibly sooner)?

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#74

Post by Swenrekcah » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:09 AM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #67

ajuc wrote: post #57

If you told people in 90s that at one point in future AIs will be able to: - drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input - take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more than 90% of people are fooled - have 95%+ accurate OCR and speech recognition - predict people's preferences regarding music/movies/books better than any…

> predict people's preferences regarding music/movies/books better than any human could What recommender algorithm is this? Amazon certainly isn’t using it.

I'm not sure the incentives align for Amazon to use it's absolute best preference algorithm. Note that I have no idea how to make a recommender engine and if they can make it any better than they have, but I suspect the real value for revenue is to make people think that the algorithm is finely tailored to their tastes, but is really just pushing whatever crap has the highest margins.

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#75

Post by catalogia » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:12 AM UTC

jinpan wrote: post #43

m0zg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but then we did not invent much else in this area since then. Computing is fundamentally the same today as it was in the 60's. Sure, transistors are smaller, there's more memory, and clock is in gigaherts, but it's the same paradigm. And this paradigm is not going to take us to AGI even if Moore's law weren't dead for the last decade. Which it is.

Have you heard of this thing called quantum computing?

Are quantum computers even relevant to AGI? I'm under the impression that the belief that human brains are quantum computers is considered fringe in both computer science and particularly neuroscience, despite having a handful of high profile proponents (notably Penrose.)

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#76

Post by catalogia » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

SCdF wrote: post #70

ajuc wrote: post #57

If you told people in 90s that at one point in future AIs will be able to: - drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input - take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more than 90% of people are fooled - have 95%+ accurate OCR and speech recognition - predict people's preferences regarding music/movies/books better than any…

> drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input Has that happened? Don't self driving cars use a huge range of sensors, and are they actually legal / widely deployed anywhere at all? Are any for sale? I don't mean improved cruise control, I mean "OK computer, take me to work". > take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more…

> Are you talking about deepfakes? I haven't seen an example that was anything other than creepy, and really really obvious. Do you think I'm just really sensitive to this kind of thing, or have I not seen the really good examples?

Hollywood has gotten pretty good at creating convincing fake faces (dead actors/actresses reappearing in Star Wars for instance) but I think that tech probably involves a lot of human artist input.

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#77

Post by ajuc » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:18 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #63

ajuc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's cheating because improving AI is working on both sides - it's making better classifiers but also better spam generators :) In the future with general AI classifying spam will be a hard problem even for people. Imagine you get a message looking like it's from your facebook friend with his catchphrases telling you about his last trip and saying how great that travel agency was :) Spam or not?

Quite an interesting point I hadn't considered at all. On the one hand I'm wondering: what's your suggestion on how to address this with minimal changes to my criteria? On the other hand I'm wondering: well, if the analog of this is that AGI might get solved with more AGI, then that's only going to make me less likely to be worried in the first place!

To make it fair you can archive current spam data and see if future spam classifiers (not trained on that particular data) recognizes it correctly.

> if the analog of this is that AGI might get solved with more AGI, then that's only going to make me less likely to be worried in the first place!

that's going to end in arms race that leaves people unaware of what's even happening (aka singularity)

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#78

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:19 AM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #57

If you told people in 90s that at one point in future AIs will be able to: - drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input - take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more than 90% of people are fooled - have 95%+ accurate OCR and speech recognition - predict people's preferences regarding music/movies/books better than any…

[deleted]

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#79

Post by square_usual » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:20 AM UTC

> The breakthrough didn’t crack 80%, so three cheers for wide credibility intervals with error margin, but I expect the predictor might be feeling slightly more nervous now with one year left to go.

Good call on that by the author; according to this summary paper [1], a model reached ~79-93% accuracy on various Winograd data sets.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13831.pdf

Re: There’s No Fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence (2017)

#80

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:23 AM UTC

SCdF wrote: post #70

ajuc wrote: post #57

If you told people in 90s that at one point in future AIs will be able to: - drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input - take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more than 90% of people are fooled - have 95%+ accurate OCR and speech recognition - predict people's preferences regarding music/movies/books better than any…

> drive a car in traffic in almost all circumstances safer than majority of human drivers basing only on video input Has that happened? Don't self driving cars use a huge range of sensors, and are they actually legal / widely deployed anywhere at all? Are any for sale? I don't mean improved cruise control, I mean "OK computer, take me to work". > take a video and replace faces from another video well enough that more…

> haven't seen an example that was anything other than creepy, and really really obvious. Do you think I'm just really sensitive to this kind of thing, or have I not seen the really good examples?

Here's a really good example (the video, not the audio, which the creators say was intentionally degraded):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l82PxsKHxYc