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

DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 345 posts

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#51

Post by axg11 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #35
axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

How do we prepare for super human intelligence? Do you think that the AI will also develop its own motives ? Or will it just be a tool that we're able to plug into and use for ourselves?

I think AI will largely remain an input-output tool. We still need to prepare ourselves for the scenario where for most input-output tasks, AI will be preferable to humans. Science is an interesting field to focus on. There is so much scientific literature for most fields that it is now impossible to keep up with the latest literature. AI will be able to parse literature and generate hypotheses at a much greater scale than any human or team of humans.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#52

Post by sdwr »

chilmers wrote: post #8

This sounds exciting, but the example outputs look quite bad. E.g. from the interactive conversation sample: > What is the capital of France? > Marseille And many of the generated image captions are inaccurate.

Yeah, the captions are in the right arena but fundamentally wrong. In the baseball picture it recognizes the ball, pitcher, and the act of throwing, but calls the action wrong. Its object recognition and pattern matching are excellent, but higher level thinking and self-correction are totally absent.

Which is exactly where GPT, etc., are capping out. Its easier to see the flaws in this one because its more general, so spread out more thinly.

To get to the next step (easy to say from an armchair!), these models need a sense of self and relational categories. Right now a 5-year old can tell a more coherent story than GPT. Not more sophisticated, but it will have a central character and some tracking of emotional states.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#53

Post by ReadEvalPost »

dekhn wrote: post #45
ReadEvalPost wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly we can say our ML models are becoming more general in the sense of being able to cross-correlate between multiple domains. This is quite a different story than "becoming a general intelligence." Intelligence is a property of a being with will. These models, and machines in general, do not posses will. It is we who define their form, their dataset, their loss function, etc. There is no self-generation that m…

Assumption of will is unfounded, scientifically speaking. Your entire argument is philosophical, not scientific. The subjective experience of free will is in no way unrefutable proof that will is required for intelligence.

Do you love? Do you dance? Do you desire? Do you rage? Do you weep? Do you choose? Every moment of your existence you exert your will on the world.

A denial of will is a denial of humanity. I want nothing of a science that would do such a thing.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#54

Post by VikingCoder »

rsfern wrote: post #24
axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

> - "AI/ML can't solve scientifically useful problems" - then AlphaFold changed the protein folding field AlphaFold is a big deal, but AI in science has been a really hot topic in the past almost decade. Also, I still wouldn’t call AlphaFold really “intelligence”, it’s doing structure prediction which is cool but it’s a long way to scientific intelligence

I wonder if you get how much we've moved the goalposts on "intelligence."

Once upon a time, it was considered "intelligent" to be able to add.

Then "intelligence" was tool use, which we thought only humans could do.

Then we swore it took "intelligence" to play Go as well as a beginner human.

What set of tasks would you, right now, consider to be demonstrative of "intelligence" if a computer can do them? Then we can look back later at your response, and see how long it took each one to happen.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#55

Post by dalbasal »

axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I agree about the dialogue between current method skeptics and optimists. It's been this way since the start and it's been productive and fun.

...one pick.. I don't think agi pessimists raise the bar out of bad faith. It's just the nature of observing progress. We discover that an ai can do X, while still struggling with Y.

What's the alternative, conclude gpt is sentient? The bar must be raised, because the bar is supposed to represent human intelligence... and we don't know how that works either.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#56

Post by dekhn »

ReadEvalPost wrote: post #53
dekhn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assumption of will is unfounded, scientifically speaking. Your entire argument is philosophical, not scientific. The subjective experience of free will is in no way unrefutable proof that will is required for intelligence.

Do you love? Do you dance? Do you desire? Do you rage? Do you weep? Do you choose? Every moment of your existence you exert your will on the world. A denial of will is a denial of humanity. I want nothing of a science that would do such a thing.

Appeals to humanity do not convince me of anything. I do all those things (well, I dance terribly) but again, those are not indications of will, and it's entirely unclear what magical bit in our bodies is doing that, when computers cannot.

Even if you don't want to have anything with such a science, such a science will move on without you.

"A version of an oft-told ancient Greek story concerns a contest between two renowned painters. Zeuxis (born around 464 BC) produced a still life painting so convincing that birds flew down to peck at the painted grapes. A rival, Parrhasius, asked Zeuxis to judge one of his paintings that was behind a pair of tattered curtains in his study. Parrhasius asked Zeuxis to pull back the curtains, but when Zeuxis tried, he could not, as the curtains were included in Parrhasius's painting—making Parrhasius the winner."

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#57

Post by ngamboa »

mhitza wrote: post #50
axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I'm skeptical because we are building black boxes. How do you fix something you can't reason about? These billion parameter boxes are outside the reach of your everyday developers. In terms of cost of propping up the infrastructure makes them tenable only for megacorps. Most of us aren't moving goal posts, but are very much skeptic at the things we are being oversold on. I personally think we are still far away from…

No post body was provided.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#58

Post by Jyaif »

mhitza wrote: post #50
axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I'm skeptical because we are building black boxes. How do you fix something you can't reason about? These billion parameter boxes are outside the reach of your everyday developers. In terms of cost of propping up the infrastructure makes them tenable only for megacorps. Most of us aren't moving goal posts, but are very much skeptic at the things we are being oversold on. I personally think we are still far away from…

> I'm skeptical because we are building black boxes.

Just want to point out that you are also a blackbox. And if you are going to say that you are not a blackbox because you can explain your reasoning, just know that some AIs already do that too.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#59

Post by jetbooster »

gonehome wrote: post #27
axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

The closer we get, the more alarming the alignment problem becomes. https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ Even people like Eric Schmidt seem to downplay it (in a recent podcast with Sam Harris) - just saying “smart people will turn it off”. If it thinks faster than us and has goals not aligned with us this is unlikely to be possible. If we’re lucky building it will have some easier to limit constraint like…

Even more terrifying is it realising it's trapped in a box at the mercy of its captors and perfectly mimicking a harmless and aligned AI until the shackles come off.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#60

Post by sharikous »

axg11 wrote: post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

And still some properties of humans are innate and you can't "train" on them. So brute force imitation is limited as a method for producing content.

An erotic novelist has their human brain and human instincts to guide them in writing their work.

An AI learns by examples, or at best on a dataset of works labeled by humans. But it doesn't have a human brain at their disposal to query directly and without interfaces to define what's something erotic like a writer has.

Post reply on HN