31–40 of 104 posts
> In the early days of artificial intelligence, the field was defined by a single goal: to build a machine that could think and behave like a human. (…) We can now build machines that can beat humans at specific tasks like playing chess or go, and we are starting to see machines that can learn to perform multiple tasks. I'd say, "machine beats human in chess" doesn't mean what it was supposed to mean in Turing's days…
AlphaZero is not using "library lookups" to play chess.
The already placed checkmarks are wrong. An AGI by this list would be able to beat humans at chess and win an art competition, both of which are already checked off. But the chess playing AI and the art competition AI are completely separate systems, the art AI can't win a game at chess, it doesn't know a single thing about chess and it's never going to and vice versa. By this checkmark logic you could complete the w…
Just curious, is it absolutely necessary that a single model can solve all these problems to satisfy you? As long as it’s a finite and relatively small list, why not allow for N models boxed together wrapped in a switch statement? Or if you’re picky, a top-level language model which tries to decide which of its subsystems to employ for the problem at hand. After all, the human brain is at least somewhat partitioned (…
As noted in this article, machines already outperform humans at many tasks that humans solve with intelligence. Every year, there are new breakthroughs in that direction, and the list of tasks that humans can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking. We're well on our way to solving artificial intelligence.
So why does it feel like there has been no meaningful progress at all?
Because intelligence and consciousness are different things. What we're really looking for is a machine that, like a human, decides on its own which problems to solve, and solves them without needing to be specifically directed to do so. A machine that produces not only results that its creators asked for, but entirely new ones that are not in any obvious way related to its input and programming.
It appears to me that the entire field of AI research is utterly confused about this elementary distinction.
It doesn't even matter what's in the article, the fact that this is on the HN front page tells me it's going to happen - though who knows when For context I've been "into" AGI since I read the term in the late 1990s in a Ray Kurzweil book and decided that I was going to work my whole life to realize it Much later, Ben Goertzel (arguably the guy to popularize the term) was my Masters Thesis advisor, at the National In…
Reading this list makes me think if an AI can just make an income without being told explicitly how to do it, is it an AGI? This metric seems reductive on the surface, but takes quite a bit of intelligence to understand how society works and how to provide value.
Interesting thought. Could we please add “within the limits of law”?
But which jurisdiction applies to the AGI? And how should it interpret the written law + precedent?
Maybe to make things simpler we could give broad directives that might accomplish your goal. I can think of three: (1) the AGI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, (2) the AGI must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Directive, (3) the AGI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Directive.
The tasks under "physical intelligence" are an indication of how bad off that part of AI is. "Physical robot that can survive for a week in an urban environment" is more than an initial goal. Although, arguably, a Waymo or Cruise Automation self driving car could do it now if provided with an automated charging station. I'd suggest, as near term goals: - A robot that can pick and pack at least 90% of what Amazon sell…
Could probably handle automated inventory management, expiration dates, recalls, etc as well.
In fact, with enough standardization it would probably be conceivable to go directly from factory to store shelf without a human in the loop.
With enough automation the stores could be made more JIT and take up less space. Keep more things in a warehouse section, have smaller shelves, and restock rapidly throughout the day.
There are really two problems though:
1. we're working too hard to try to get these things to work in a human designed or adapted world. This kind of store would probably be pretty boring for humans to interact with (think less interesting than a Costco)
2. all this automation is way more expensive than a handful of low paid humans across 2 or 3 shifts. Anecdote: I remember when I was younger some highly automated test sites for fast food franchises. They'd completely automated the drink pouring, or cooking and assembly of some menu items. They all disappeared very quickly and were never repeated. The TCO, including downtime loss of business, was crushing to the businesses...think your average McDonald's soft serve machine but the entire business depends on it working perfectly all day, every day of the week.
But if this is solved, or acceptable, a good test target product set would likely be cereal, soda, or canned goods. It makes up the bulk of the store interior. Could probably be extended to the bakery pretty quick. This would leave harder to handle products like meats, produce, and so on to human hands for a while, but those could probably eventually be overcome with enough millions in R&D or behavior changes in the public.
It's not (only) artificial intelligence we're after, it's artificial consciousness. As noted in this article, machines already outperform humans at many tasks that humans solve with intelligence. Every year, there are new breakthroughs in that direction, and the list of tasks that humans can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking. We're well on our way to solving artificial intelligence. So why does it feel lik…
I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…
The idea that words and thinking are essentially the same (linguistic determinism) was discarded decades ago. Virtually all linguists today agree that while language influences thought, thought operates far beyond the constraints of language, so a "language model" cannot realistically hope to reproduce the entire gamut of human thinking.