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

Road to Artificial General Intelligence

maraoz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#91

Post by ramraj07 »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #87

Author seems focused on toys. This seems like a more well rounded explanation and argument: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artifici...

That was an amazing read, thank you. Clearly lays the proposition that the first (if only) problem to solve is philosophical. Which brings us to the sorry state of academic philosophy today. A bunch of people who for the most part don’t know math, or a solid understanding of reality (including quantum mechanics). A group among which “anti-scientism” is a more and more popular topic for some reason. A group, which from whenever I ask this question, they agree there’s no moral standing for eating meat but almost none of them are vegans. Only slightly less forgivable than cardiologist who die of heart attacks I suppose.

Whatever happens one can bet this AGI breakthrough if it occurs will happen quite far from this group of people.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#94

Post by fastball »

masswerk wrote: post #31
fastball wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaZero is not using "library lookups" to play chess.

Well, Deep Blue did.

Sure, but the whole point of the article is about progress that is being made. You can't point at Deep Blue and ignore all the things that have happened in AI chess since then.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#95

Post by juliusgeo »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #86
celdon25 wrote: post #80

I wish authors like these would put a bit more effort and research into these posts. There's a big gap between something being clickbait and something being worthy of the title heading they dared to slap on it. This post probably harmed AGI research more than it helped. The author shows profound naivety by listing these in supposed "progressive difficulty" order, without evidence of such, all the while proclaiming th…

It’s a blog post. If a random blog post on HN is all it takes to harm AGI research, it wasn’t going anywhere anyway.

While it is a blog post, I think their concern that it could muddy the waters persists regardless. Your statement seems to imply that if it was a worthwhile idea it would not harmed by mischaracterization, which doesn’t make much sense to me.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#97

Post by bsenftner »

ramraj07 wrote: post #91
cactusplant7374 wrote: post #87

Author seems focused on toys. This seems like a more well rounded explanation and argument: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artifici...

That was an amazing read, thank you. Clearly lays the proposition that the first (if only) problem to solve is philosophical. Which brings us to the sorry state of academic philosophy today. A bunch of people who for the most part don’t know math, or a solid understanding of reality (including quantum mechanics). A group among which “anti-scientism” is a more and more popular topic for some reason. A group, which fro…

And yet, just like the majority of essays on AGI, that linked essay is a nice survey of history, but once that history is completed the author implies they are going to discuss the history of AGI construction attempts, but never does. The article transitions into personal theory and just peters out.

Perhaps I'm short sighted, but until we have some implementation capable theory of comprehension - that universal ability of humans to observe any phenomena and mentally deconstruct it into separate individual and independent driving forces that combine to create the observed phenomena - until we have an artificial comprehension algorithm all efforts towards AGI are futile.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#98

Post by [deleted] »

juliusgeo wrote: post #95
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a blog post. If a random blog post on HN is all it takes to harm AGI research, it wasn’t going anywhere anyway.

While it is a blog post, I think their concern that it could muddy the waters persists regardless. Your statement seems to imply that if it was a worthwhile idea it would not harmed by mischaracterization, which doesn’t make much sense to me.

[deleted]

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#99

Post by ramraj07 »

bsenftner wrote: post #97
ramraj07 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an amazing read, thank you. Clearly lays the proposition that the first (if only) problem to solve is philosophical. Which brings us to the sorry state of academic philosophy today. A bunch of people who for the most part don’t know math, or a solid understanding of reality (including quantum mechanics). A group among which “anti-scientism” is a more and more popular topic for some reason. A group, which fro…

And yet, just like the majority of essays on AGI, that linked essay is a nice survey of history, but once that history is completed the author implies they are going to discuss the history of AGI construction attempts, but never does. The article transitions into personal theory and just peters out. Perhaps I'm short sighted, but until we have some implementation capable theory of comprehension - that universal abili…

It’s likely folks like him and Hofstadter have thought long and hard about it and just haven’t found a viable theory or explanation yet and hence the conjecture. We need more extremely intelligent people thinking about it. Or maybe we don’t! But at least that’s the explanation I see as valid here.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#100

Post by masswerk »

fastball wrote: post #94
masswerk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Deep Blue did.

Sure, but the whole point of the article is about progress that is being made. You can't point at Deep Blue and ignore all the things that have happened in AI chess since then.

This is why the sentence includes both: successful historical approaches and current approaches. Nevertheless, none of this is why it was once of interest.
Post reply on HN