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

Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#51

Post by otikik »

Animats wrote: post #6

This is a common sentiment, and pundits have been making similar remarks for decades. This author writes "Sixty years later, however, high-level reasoning and thought remain elusive." That's the wrong problem with AI. The trouble with AI is that it still sucks at manipulation in unstructured situations and at "common sense". Common sense can usefully be defined as getting through the next 30 seconds of life without a…

There’s not a single missing something, there’s at least 2.

One of them is physical structure. You can get 10M somethings, sure, but how do you wire them together is probably more important than how many there are. And there’s many possible combinations.

The other missing part is that we have not figured out the high level software. A squirrel brain is a “desktop PC running windows”-level of utility. A bunch of neurons interlinked is some fashion is equivalent to a blank CPU. We know how the individual transistors work, but the BIOS, and OS are still unknown.

It’s quite possible that problem 1 and problem 2 are related, because evolution doesn’t care about making things easy to understand for us with clear delimitations.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#52

Post by pjc50 »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #43
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that people appreciate how even the highly technical white collar jobs have large social elements in them. You might be able to get the AI to write the code, but can you get it to attend the meetings? And it's understanding what the right thing is to build that's the critical challenge in programming.

True but that won't save men. Already women are better suited for jobs that involve communication and empathy. I was in a hospital last week: almost a full female staff.

Humans are famously unable to adapt to changes in their environment.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#53

Post by abudabi123 »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #31

I suspect biological brains have a pretty groundbreaking hack to solve the long-term short term learning problem. Maybe involving sleep. What I mean by that is that AIs, the way they are currently built, need to learn very slowly on short term inputs or they overfit. Whereas humans can learn something just by explanation short term and don't have overfitting problems. I suspect this is solved by sleep, and I haven't…

Memory in the brain has a tree-like structure, kind of like an abstract syntax tree. When Starship returns to the launchpad and sticks the landing on the launch tower, I guess A.I. will have progressed a little bit more.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#54

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

pydry wrote: post #30
bravura wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the immediate outcome of AI is not that we replace taxi drivers, dishwashers, and factory workers, but instead we displace most knowledge-worker white collar jobs, like quant and software engineer? There's an old (and sometimes forgotten) idea in AI that perhaps things we think are simple, like vision and control (robotics), are actually incredibly complicated and took millions of years to evolve. Whereas…

I dont't think it's intuition. There's a whole field of junk economics dedicated to telling us that your position in the economic class hierarchy determines the automatability of your job. In general it goes unquestioned. A vast amount of capital is also deployed based upon this assumption. This is an example paper that, for instance, mathematically blurred the distinction between offshoring and automation: https://t…

No post body was provided.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#55

Post by oldandtired »

The question to ask is whether or not any algorithmic system is capable of exceeding the programming on which it is based. This question applies to every kind of system we have developed over the years.

The other point to make is that we already build systems that can exceed their programming and they are called children.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#56

Post by abudabi123 »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #2

This is one of my favorites. So much of industrial AI is about replacing labor (usually cheaper but lower quality). In a way, AGI is only slightly more ambitious. We should be setting higher goals for AI, including helping individuals be superhuman, and helping organizations coordinate betteele.

maybe the A.I. affords every human to be an affluent retiree/philosopherking and have free-will

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#57

Post by Jack000 »

sn41 wrote: post #22

As a theory person who usually explains O notation using concrete numbers, the degree of the neural network in our brain is approx 7000. Taking approx 86 billion ~ 100 billion, this itself is a graph with approx 6x10^(14) edges - does AGI proponents really hope to be able to do this? I am genuinely curious to know : is there some simplifying assumption which makes things faster?

You can make the same argument for cats, dogs and other mammals, which do have embodied intelligence but not the skills we typically associate with general intelligence (language, deductive reasoning, math, etc). Raw neuron count is only loosely associated with intelligence, which is highly variable even between individual humans with nearly equivalent neurons.

Our brains are made of tiny little animals because that's just how life evolved on this planet. It's not a given that this is the best or even a good way to approach the problem.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#58

Post by Galaxeblaffer »

Randomly watched this yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXgqik6HXc0&ab_channel=LexFr... where Roger Penrose argues that we're missing something fundamental about consciousness and his best bet is a structure called the microtubules. This talk reminded me of my own research into "AI" back in the 00's and that it's almost impossible to talk about AI since everybody has a different idea as to whay AI is, yes i know there's a pretty good classification ANI, AGI, ASI but most people don't know about this and think of AI as a machine that thinks like conscious human. I'd argue that we've solved or at least partly solved the part of AI that has to do with neural nets. We're still some way off utilizing the full potential of neural nets since our hardware hasn't quite reached the capability of emulating even the simplest of complex animals. The thing is that Neural nets are probably only part of intelligence and creating bigger and more complex neural nets probably wont result in what most people consider AI but i guess there's still a chance it might. We might have to wait several years to find out since moors law is plateauing and neural chips are still in it's infancy. My best guess is that we'll solve "Intelligence" long before we solve consciousness and i think we're actually quite far along here. The best theory of intelligence i've read so far is Jeff Hawkins 1000 Brain Theory and i'm really looking forward to see how far it can go. The problem with this theory is that it's still missing the most critical component which is the illusive mechanism that binds all the "Intelligent" stuff together and i guess that might be hidden in the quantum nature of the microtubules but to solve that we kind of need a new component to our theory of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Effects.

Sorry if i went a bit off topic, but just needed to get my thoughts since yesterday out my head.

Re: Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)

#60

Post by rbanffy »

data_maan wrote: post #34
Animats wrote: post #6

This is a common sentiment, and pundits have been making similar remarks for decades. This author writes "Sixty years later, however, high-level reasoning and thought remain elusive." That's the wrong problem with AI. The trouble with AI is that it still sucks at manipulation in unstructured situations and at "common sense". Common sense can usefully be defined as getting through the next 30 seconds of life without a…

> Current hardware is easily up to the task. I don't think so. If you want to model a single synapse in full to capture all effects that might lead to "learning", you have a system of ordinary differential equations. Solving that is very hard, and solving that for 10 million neurons is impossible. On current hardware can only implement but a poor caricature of a real neuron.

> On current hardware can only implement but a poor caricature of a real neuron.

We don't need a complete physiological model for it to be useful. We don't need a perfectly accurate silicon-based mirror of a mammalian brain to outsmart ours on every task we do (and many we don't even realize we could). The challenge will be to coexist and cooperate with these completely alien intelligences that share almost nothing with ours.

Post reply on HN