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

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

#91

Post by SCdF » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 11:13 AM UTC

catalogia wrote: post #76

SCdF wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 arti…

Do you think they are convincing, yet? General whatshisface in the recent SW movie looked really really bad. I don't recall how Leia looked in RoTS because that was such a deeply boring movie for me I forgot almost all of it minutes after watching it (though maybe that means the CG there was flawless?)

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

#92

Post by jp555 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 11:17 AM UTC

Zaak wrote: post #64

jp555 wrote: post #6

“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…

> “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.” Moore's Law. Use computers to make better computers. Exponential growth over more than 7 orders of magnitude and, although the growth rate is slowing, it hasn't run out of steam yet…

Moore’s Law is an S-curve too. Its already approaching its asymptote - accelerating diminishing returns.

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

#93

Post by Tenoke » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 11:45 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 also dont benefit much from thr majority of reccomendations but I think you might just be underestimating how bad humans are at it.

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

#94

Post by abainbridge » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #66

abainbridge wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the broadness is the problem. If it wasn't broad, you could hard code answers to all the questions. Examples of some basic questions that have no chance of working today: "Do you remember that discussion we were having last time?", "I've scanned the document you want, can I paste it straight into the chat window?", "Is PDF format OK?", "Can you look at page 2 in the PDF?".

I think just "No" would work as an answer to all of those questions. (Tongue only halfway in cheek...)

Haha. I guess that's what real people who work at my bank would say. But I'm not sure they possess general purpose intelligence either.

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

#95

Post by nimithryn » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

SCdF wrote: post #89

leereeves wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

So my positive take is that this is the best (or worst depending on your perspective) I've seen for sure. The negative take is that this still looks really fake to me. His eyes are dead, his head whips around weirdly, his neck undulates and flickers, his face doesn't appear attached to his head, etc. Also, due to how Obama looks he may be easier than other people (ie no hair). Also, this isn't exactly what OP was tal…

Not to mention that there's way more video of Obama speaking than most people

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

#96

Post by som33 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

memexy wrote: post #41

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!

Proving theorems. I will nominate Cauchy's Residue Theorem. It has already been formalized so a neural network or any generally intelligent agent should be able to do the same: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~wl302/publications/itp16.pdf . Complex analysis in general is one of the more fun parts of math and I doubt it's getting automated any time soon. It also has a lot of application in signal processing ( https://www.quo…

They fear AI because they are misprojecting their animal psychology onto something that did not undergo any kind of evolutionary process.

AKA if we build AI it will be "like us" it will reason like a human being would, rather than it being it's own phenomenon.

I think the real fears concern automated killing machines every military on the planet is developing, aka Dystopian robocops that can surreptitiously kill protestors/stop potential revolutions, etc.

A fear which is not unwarranted.

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

#97

Post by gwern » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:58 PM 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…

> But now that we are there we devalue these acomplishements because we know how to do them, and still don't know how to do general AI.

One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. Why are you so certain of that in light of all the achievements you listed, most of which were not predicted to happen even a decade ago? Did someone release a mathematical proof that large NNs can't be intelligent while I wasn't looking? Did aliens arrive and tell us that no, AGI just doesn't look anything like what we're doing? How would the world right now look any different if we were on a route towards AGI in a decade or two, keeping in mind that we are still roughly at the 'insect' level on the various connectionist extrapolations and still aspiring towards 'mouse' levels?

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

#98

Post by ZhuanXia » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

som33 wrote: post #96

memexy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proving theorems. I will nominate Cauchy's Residue Theorem. It has already been formalized so a neural network or any generally intelligent agent should be able to do the same: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~wl302/publications/itp16.pdf . Complex analysis in general is one of the more fun parts of math and I doubt it's getting automated any time soon. It also has a lot of application in signal processing ( https://www.quo…

They fear AI because they are misprojecting their animal psychology onto something that did not undergo any kind of evolutionary process. AKA if we build AI it will be "like us" it will reason like a human being would, rather than it being it's own phenomenon. I think the real fears concern automated killing machines every military on the planet is developing, aka Dystopian robocops that can surreptitiously kill prot…

You should not impute beliefs on others when you have not read their arguments. I would recommend reading this: https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_driv...

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

#99

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #50

memexy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proving theorems. I will nominate Cauchy's Residue Theorem. It has already been formalized so a neural network or any generally intelligent agent should be able to do the same: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~wl302/publications/itp16.pdf . Complex analysis in general is one of the more fun parts of math and I doubt it's getting automated any time soon. It also has a lot of application in signal processing ( https://www.quo…

I like to think I'm a generally intelligent agent, but I put long odds that I'll be doing that in the next 2 years.

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by memexy » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

ZhuanXia wrote: post #98

som33 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They fear AI because they are misprojecting their animal psychology onto something that did not undergo any kind of evolutionary process. AKA if we build AI it will be "like us" it will reason like a human being would, rather than it being it's own phenomenon. I think the real fears concern automated killing machines every military on the planet is developing, aka Dystopian robocops that can surreptitiously kill prot…

You should not impute beliefs on others when you have not read their arguments. I would recommend reading this: https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_driv...

One of my tricks is to substitute "person" whenever I read the word "AI" and "AGI". Here's the substitution performed for the paper you linked to (just the abstract not the whole thing)

> One might imagine that [people] with harmless goals will be harmless. This paper instead shows that [incentives for people] will need to be carefully designed to prevent them from behaving in harmful ways. We identify a number of “drives” that will appear in [most] [people]. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted. We start by showing that goal-seeking [people] will have drives to model their own operation and to improve themselves. We then show that self-improving [people] will be driven to clarify their goals and represent them as economic utility functions. They will also strive for their actions to approximate rational economic behavior. This will lead almost all [people] to protect their utility functions from modification and their utility measurement systems from corruption. We also discuss some exceptional [people] which will want to modify their utility functions. We next discuss the drive toward self-protection which causes [people] to try to prevent themselves from being harmed. Finally we examine drives toward the acquisition of resources and toward their efficient utilization. We end with a discussion of how to incorporate these insights in designing intelligent technology which will lead to a positive future for humanity.

If you zoom out a little bit this is exactly what people do. We structure societal institutions to prevent people from causing harm to each other. One can argue we could be better at this but it's not a cause for alarm. It's business as usual if we want to continue improving living conditions for people on the planet.