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

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

#111

Post by memexy » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #107

memexy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example of a mind extremely different from a human one? I ask because if we assume that human minds are Turing complete then there is nothing beyond human minds as far as computation is concerned. I see no reason to suspect that self-aware Turing machines will be unlike humans. I don't fear humans so I have no reason to fear self-aware AI because as far as I'm concerned I interact with self-aware AI al…

There is nothing beyond a human with an abacus as far as computation is concerned, and yet computers can do so much more. "Turing complete, therefore nothing can do any better" is true only in the least meaningful sense: "given infinite time and effort, I can do anything with it". In reality we don't have infinite time and effort. You seem to believe that "figuring some way out of performing the given task" is a thin…

> It can augment and help people improve their planning horizons which in my book is always a good thing.

Why do I need protection from something that helps me become a better decision maker and planner? Every computational tool has made me a better person. I want that kind of capability as widely spread as possible so everyone can reach their full potential like Magnus Carlson.

More generally, whatever capabilities have made me a better person I want available to others. Computers have helped me learn and AI makes computers more accessible to everyone so AI is a net positive force for good.

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

#112

Post by umvi » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #106

throwaway2048 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of examples of corporations run into the ground in the name of profit

In the name is not the same as having profits.

You can also make crappy decisions that increase profit in the short term but burn out your employees and run the company into the ground in the long term.

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

#113

Post by umvi » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

sacred_numbers wrote: post #33

m0zg wrote: post #5

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.

> but history is filled with people who say "this can't happen" and are proven horribly wrong.

And history is also filled with people who said "this can't happen" and died without ever getting the chance to say "I told you so" 2000 years later when [thing] still hasn't happened

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

#114

Post by umvi » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

shahbaby wrote: post #90

catalogia wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

People have a common tendency to connect one thing they don't understand with another they also don't understand.

"If only AI were powered by quantum computers, then AGI would emerge."

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

#115

Post by umvi » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

typon wrote: post #4

mellosouls wrote: post #2

Needs an editor tbh, far too long and waffly. I'm guessing from the title there may be a useful point to it, but it could do with some tough love to unearth it.

"progress is closer than you might imagine"

"but it also may be much, much further away than you might imagine. That's the problem when you don't understand something. You don't know what you don't know."

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

#116

Post by catalogia » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

SCdF wrote: post #91

catalogia wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?)

If I didn't already know they were fake, I probably wouldn't notice. But knowing they were fake going into it, they did seem vaguely "off". If Hollywood isn't quite there yet, I think they're very close.

(I share your general dissatisfaction with these particular movies though.)

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

#117

Post by taberiand » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

nopinsight wrote: post #73

taberiand wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

My point is in thirty years, due to humankinds inability to work together on a common goal of self-preservation and equality, we'll most likely simply be further down the path of the probable collapse of civilization.

If we knew aliens were coming, we'd probably be best off hoping for their benevolence and mercy and preparing as best we could to deserve it.

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

#118

Post by sbierwagen » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

jkhdigital wrote: post #13

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…

Surprised he didn't mention the Flynn effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect A book I recently read (Range, by David Epstein) seems to draw a connection through some other research that points to modernization and globalization as the drivers of this trend, in the sense that IQ tests measure pure abstract reasoning ability and we now live in a world dominated by abstraction so our brains get used to think…

That exact Wikipedia article you linked notes the Flynn effect flatlined in Norway starting in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...

Since 1986, Norwegian GDP has quadrupled. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

I'm not sure how you could conclude the Flynn effect is linked to development, from that data.

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

#119

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 10:36 PM 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!

I think it's a weird challenge. Like what's the shortest height that you're very confident that most people (> 50%) would consider tall? This is a tough question. You might get silence and tentative answers if you asked it. You might get different answers in different circumstances. But it doesn't mean "tall" is a concept we can't reason about confidently.

"What is the least X that you're confident of f(X)?" is just a hard question for any uncertain or vaguely defined X. Doubly so for an uncertain and vaguely defined X. But I don't think it tells us that much about X.

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

#120

Post by nopinsight » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #110

nopinsight wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how much time Carlsen spends learning from chess AI, he will always get pummeled by a good chess engine running on everyday computers. The distance only grows wider over the years. It doesn't matter much since our livelihoods don't depend on winning in chess against AI. But what if instead of the chess board, it is the real world? Much of the world is controlled by computer systems. A capable AGI can infilt…

I do not share your perspective and fears then. The point isn't that a computer can beat Magnus, the point is that computers helped him reach his full potential and the same technology when expanded through AI can help others in the same way. I don't fear any AGI takeover because people already are AGI and life is pretty good being among them.

AIs, being digital, have some clear advantages over people. Very rapid replication, enormous communication bandwidth, potential to expand capacity to global scale, for example. A human-level AI with these features common among ordinary software will already be super-human.

People have deep, often implicitly shared values. Most care for human and their own lives, for example. Given limited capacity of a person, they need to cooperate for major acts. It is thus quite hard to do something extraordinary and in conflict with the values held by most humans.

Side note: There are top AI researchers, including Yann Lecun, who argue our intelligence is not general. They made some good points. I think the generality of intelligence is a gradient. Ours is not at the very top end of possibilities, but clearly more general than other animals.