Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#91

Post by klmadfejno »

andrewprock wrote: post #87
Falling3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.

The moving of the goal posts is being done by those who claim that chess algorithm are in any sense intelligent. The same holds for artificial intelligence broadly. It is as far from intelligence as a can opener.

If a lookup table can predict human decisions with high accuracy given access to its senses and feelings, then either a human is just another can opener or intelligence isn't real.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#92

Post by TchoBeer »

andrewprock wrote: post #87
Falling3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.

The moving of the goal posts is being done by those who claim that chess algorithm are in any sense intelligent. The same holds for artificial intelligence broadly. It is as far from intelligence as a can opener.

At what point would you be willing to concede that an algorithm is actually intelligent? What would be required for that?

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#93

Post by klmadfejno »

mjburgess wrote: post #86
Falling3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.

The objective was to build an intelligent machine. Games were chosen as they, in humans, require intelligence. They thought that AI would come out of building systems that can replace humans: sure, but only insofar as you preserve the use of intelligence. If you replace with a shortcut, you havent built an intelligent machine.

The objective was to make a machine that could beat anybody at chess. Nobody on the Alpha Zero team believes Alpha Zero is an example of general AI. Teaching a system to understand a complex system is a necessary subcomponent of general intelligence.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#94

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

mjburgess wrote: post #82
klmadfejno wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. > That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move. Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from you…

> Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move? Not quite. You'd need to look into how people play chess. It has vastly more to do with present positioning and making high-quality evaluations of present board configuration. > rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums Indeed. And what is a system which merel…

I think intelligence is more generally how an agent optimizes to be successful, objectively and subjectively, across a wide variety of different situations.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#95

Post by andrewprock »

TchoBeer wrote: post #92
andrewprock wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moving of the goal posts is being done by those who claim that chess algorithm are in any sense intelligent. The same holds for artificial intelligence broadly. It is as far from intelligence as a can opener.

At what point would you be willing to concede that an algorithm is actually intelligent? What would be required for that?

The definition of algorithm and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Maybe you are asking a different question?

"When will we discover an algorithm for intelligence?"

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#96

Post by inglor_cz »

mjburgess wrote: post #48
ithkuil wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dog is not.made of metal but I have yet to see a dog that drives better than a waymo self-driving car.

A dog's environment isn't roads. And no car has been design for a dog to drive. Were such a car to exist, it is clear the dog would win in very very many environments (almost all). As would a mouse, let alone a dog. That it may be possible to rig a human environment to be replete with so many symbols (road signs, etc.) that an incredibly dumb automated system can follow them is hardly here-nor-there. Personally, I do…

"centuries"

Centuries is a long, long time in science and technology. It is 2021. If we take "centuries" to mean two centuries, railways with steam engines were not yet a thing in 1821. Cars without horses much less so.

None of us can predict the state of computer science in 2221.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#97

Post by richk449 »

mjburgess wrote: post #82
klmadfejno wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. > That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move. Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from you…

> Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move? Not quite. You'd need to look into how people play chess. It has vastly more to do with present positioning and making high-quality evaluations of present board configuration. > rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums Indeed. And what is a system which merel…

Let’s say that you have the ability to know the state of every neuron, and the interconnect map between them, at all times. You watch a chess player make a move, determine what is going on, and define the process the brain follows as an algorithm. Now that you have an algorithm, you have a very powerful piece of silicon execute the algorithm. Does that piece of silicon have intelligence? You would probably say no, since simply executing a pre-defined algorithm is a shortcut. Intelligence means the ability to develop the algorithm intrinsically in your head.

So fine, we take a step back. Instead of tracing all the neurons as they determine a chess move, we trace all the neurons as they start, from a baby, and learn to see and to understand spatial temporal behavior and as they understand other independent entities that can think like they do and as they learn chess and how to make a move. Then we encode all of that into algorithms and run it on silicon. Is that intelligence? To me, it sounds like it is just a shortcut - we figured out what a brain does, reduced it to algorithms, and ran those algorithms on a computer.

What if we go back further and replay evolution. Is that a shortcut?

To be fair, you did claim that the ability to adapt and make tools is what distinguishes real intelligence. But I wonder if ten years from now, you will saying that a tool making computer is just a shortcut.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#98

Post by richk449 »

andrewprock wrote: post #95
TchoBeer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point would you be willing to concede that an algorithm is actually intelligent? What would be required for that?

The definition of algorithm and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Maybe you are asking a different question? "When will we discover an algorithm for intelligence?"

If we understand something, we can describe it with an algorithm.

If algorithms for intelligence are by definition impossible, then understanding intelligence is by definition impossible.

So if true intelligence is something beyond our current understanding of the world (beyond algorithmic description). To me, this feels like god in the gaps applied to intelligence.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#99

Post by da_chicken »

lkbm wrote: post #80
dragontamer wrote: post #68

Hmmm... >> Jeff Bezos’s Amazon operated on extremely tight margins and was not profitable https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312509... Amazon made $645 million net profit in 2008, $476 net profit in 2007, and $190 million in 2006. Where did this myth of "Amazon doesn't make profits" come from? Why are people seemingly unable to check publicly shared historical 10k and fact-check themselves before m…

Yeah, the 2008 number is wrong, but the meme comes from earlier. Its first profitable quarter was Q4 2001, three years after IPO, and it's first profitable year was 2003, six years after IPO.[0] This seems like a long time, especially for the late nineties/early 2000s. (Though tbh, IPO three years after founding feels early to me too.) Additionally, I seem to recall that they talked this up. Not "we're working on bec…

From what I remember, Amazon's strategy early on was to take as much revenue as it could and invest it back into itself. It intentionally ran in the red to try to grow faster.

Re: A.I. Is Solving the Wrong Problem

#100

Post by andrewprock »

richk449 wrote: post #98
andrewprock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of algorithm and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Maybe you are asking a different question? "When will we discover an algorithm for intelligence?"

If we understand something, we can describe it with an algorithm. If algorithms for intelligence are by definition impossible, then understanding intelligence is by definition impossible. So if true intelligence is something beyond our current understanding of the world (beyond algorithmic description). To me, this feels like god in the gaps applied to intelligence.

Understanding does not imply computability. The halting problem is the classic example of this.
Post reply on HN