Live data from Hacker News

Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

cis.temple.edu

61–70 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#61
It's fairly clear to me that there is no such thing as AGI. Intelligence is a process of integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms -- nothing more, nothing less.

Are there specific structures and architectures that have evolved that are very unique which give humans, say, language ability or visual processing? Certainly. Perhaps by gods spark or some random chance on the board game of life human beings developed examples of very particular structures. Perhaps there are undiscovered ones lying within the minds of peregrine falcons, tree roots or deep sea squid. We don't even know how to look for them because we don't even know such perception and intelligence exists.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no "goal post" of AGI, there is no quantification of intelligence yet. We don't even know what sorts of intelligence exist out there because we haven't even begun to fully characterize what it is. It seems foolish to me to search for something when we can't even define it.

It's like trying to find "the ultimate general animal" when what you really have is a phylogenetic tree of huge diversity.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#62
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> considered Artificial Intelligence anymore That is just the confusion between AI and AGI - which may seem to be peaking for some reason (in the past few days it seemed like a zombie apocalypse). The so-called "AI effect" is said by some to originate from some "Ah but this is not intelligent" - but there where we wanted to solve a problem of replacing intelligent action, not of implementing it. Be contented with the…

What counts as "human level"? I would contend that a 5-year-old has general intelligence, and therefore an AI system with the language and reasoning abilities of a 5-year-old has artificial general intelligence. But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human. I'd prefer we use a di…

> But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI

I believe they were using that discriminator to classify AI, not AGI.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#63
post #55

Better title: "Artificial General Intelligence – We don't know the heck where this is going but here are some thoughts"

I've been forced to work with a team of very very smart Phds from ivy league universities to help put together an explanation deck for the c-suite. They've informally told me, the neural nets AI tech is beyond human understanding. Everybody can only explain very small pieces of it,and no one knows how the pieces work together.

It is true and it's worth reminding. Science is progressed by interpretation of data. And we have easy access to a behemoth that needs interpreting. AI winter shouldn't come anytime soon.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#64

It's fairly clear to me that there is no such thing as AGI. Intelligence is a process of integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms -- nothing more, nothing less. Are there specific structures and architectures that have evolved that are very unique which give humans, say, language ability or visual processing? Certainly. Perhaps by gods spark or some random chance on the board game of life human bei…

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your general take. An AGI is a generalized agent which is able to perform extreme information compression on any available set of inputs. Think Force = m*a and coming up with the laws of the universe. You can store each possible action in memory of all available results OR -- a generalized agent will find the most succinct and least complex form of modelling the state of a system. An AGI to me in other words is a form of intelligence which is able to extract information and compress it such a way to not allow the lossy compression or storage to hinder its ability to predict real outputs from a set of training data fed into it. By the way, I have some ideas on how to create one and I'll be sharing some of the key algorithms and data structures that I'll be using here for anyone interested:

https://github.com/photonlines/AGI-Algorithms-and-Prototypes...

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#65

It's fairly clear to me that there is no such thing as AGI. Intelligence is a process of integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms -- nothing more, nothing less. Are there specific structures and architectures that have evolved that are very unique which give humans, say, language ability or visual processing? Certainly. Perhaps by gods spark or some random chance on the board game of life human bei…

surely being able to construct a turing-complete computing device is a sufficient condition to qualify as general intelligence, and it seems like a reasonable bar for considering a purported intelligent agent as interesting.

> It seems foolish to me to search for something when we can't even define it.

This is backwards. The vast majority of concepts outside mathematics are pretty hard to rigorously define. The way we approach the problem of trying to find a sensible definition is by searching for examples and counterexamples and performing induction.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#67
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have we seen the slightest proof of opposite? Well, for one, I see no competition. I don't know what the technical definition of "special" is, but I'd say being the only one counts for something. > What senses might you consider as enough practical? Have you heard about Koko? What do you think about corvidae? I know both and I know this is a slippery slope. You should know my love for animals runs deep, but I reall…

I appreciate the amount of intelligence you put in the message, it is interesting to read and to think about. But the style of your reasoning gives me some hints of creationism, let me show you some anti-creationism point of view. > Practical means something like, can they adapt their skills as widely as we can? The most crucial (in my opinion, which has been not introduced to any more crucial points) difference betw…

Oh my, I have seldomly been accused of creationism. To be clear, I can separate the ability from the creature. I don't have a religious or otherwise attachment to the human form specifically. Other than - to be completely honest here - being one.

Let's just clear that out of the way. What I am "claiming", which would be an exaggeration because I'm sort of exploring here, is that whatever human cognition is may be an optimal or near-optimal state of cognitive ability.

So, to be fair, give Koko some millions of years and some evolutionary pressure and I'm sure she'll join us and I'd be happy to have her on our team.

Your point about our ability to hold our breath and how it lead to our increasing dominance is fascinating. I have to say I am not completely sold on the idea that holding your breath is the only way to develop proper channels of communication for I can easily imagine some sort of physical signaling standing in for at least parts of it. That said, I can appreciate the immediate and overwhelming advantage of speech.

This does stimulate my curiosity about what came first here, speech or cognitive ability? Why did "we" even consider speaking? How does one do that without having the cognitive architecture for recognizing its value in the first place? In other words, was "us" being smarter the catalyst for speaking or was it the other way around? Fascinating and I am way too much of an amateur to say anything more of value on it.

I will however continue do so anyway, because that is my sacred duty as a dedicated HN'er and allround developer douchebag.

> What can be more uncommon than living on a trees without a warm house and typically without any house at all, without regular nutrition, with a lot of really different enemies from tiny insects to giant cats, with a regular fights, with no democracy and law and medicine?

I might be in danger of being too blunt here, but this is the bar you have to clear if you wish to survive. This is exactly what humans are capable of even in their "undeveloped" form. These sort of pressures might be foundational to our evolution, but then again, every animal has to deal with it in some way or another so I'm not sure what made us take what I can only call the excessively cerebral path. Maybe it was like the evolution of the peacock's tail? A runaway process, leading to miraculous but exorbitant results like the mantis shrimp's eyes.

What I mean by uncommon is: can we coach you to pick cotton, whittle little wooden sculptures, play a game like checkers and sing simple songs or whatever else is appropiate for your particular physical form and has virtually no bearing on your immediate survival? I know this is a hard thing to pin down, because one can come up with myriad examples of varying levels of persuasive power but you surely perceive some differences here even if they are hard to lock into? Differences that cannot just be attributed to language or lack of proper motivation.

It's not so much every thing we can do in particular that's piquing my interest, but the sheer breadth of things we are capable of taking on both physical (parkour, gymnasts) and cerebral (chess, math). I didn't even get to art, which is like a whole world on its own and the various combinations of all those domains.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#68
post #3

How do we know which institutions to trust in safely deploying AGI? From my POV some kind of autonomous and generalized intelligence is inevitable and imminent - but who can be trusted to deliver something that works for the majority? Or is that a pipe dream?

If an AGI is possible at all, it's not going to be something that you control . The issue isn't whether someone trustworthy creates it. The issue is, no matter who creates it, it will decide what it's going to do. Its creator will not have real control. So having it "work for the majority" isn't so much a pipe dream, it's more of a roll of the dice, with completely unknown odds.

It's hard to talk about this and clearly convey all meaning.

If you're saying that it will decide because neural nets are black boxes which we don't have a complete understanding of, and we're without a clear way to analyze their behavior, I can see where you're coming from.

But these things will not be beyond our influence. They're going to be slaves to the computations encoded in the neural net connections / weights. We're going to shape / mold them through a process akin to natural selection. We're going to select for intelligences that want to help humanity. It's not going to be a roll of a normal dice, it'll be more like the roll of a weighted dice. And we're going to, I believe, get better tools / theories for understanding the output of these neural nets so we will be able to conduct this selection with some confidence.

Humans can be said to decide what we're going to do thanks to an uncaring, unconscious, and brutal evolutionary process that prioritized self-interest, survival, and reproduction. It's all about the selection process, and this time around we have a hand in guiding it.

Just my two cents anyway.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as "human level"? I would contend that a 5-year-old has general intelligence, and therefore an AI system with the language and reasoning abilities of a 5-year-old has artificial general intelligence. But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human. I'd prefer we use a di…

> But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI I believe they were using that discriminator to classify AI, not AGI.

> pay an intelligent professional otherwise [...] discriminator to classify AI

Exactly. "Ah but your system to organize the warehouse is not intelligent!" "No it isn't, but it does it intelligently - and without it you would have to pay an intelligent professional to get it done optimally".

AI: "automation of intelligence".

(Not "implementation of intelligence itself" - that is AGI.)

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#70

It's fairly clear to me that there is no such thing as AGI. Intelligence is a process of integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms -- nothing more, nothing less. Are there specific structures and architectures that have evolved that are very unique which give humans, say, language ability or visual processing? Certainly. Perhaps by gods spark or some random chance on the board game of life human bei…

> goal post ... define it

But we have a pretty clear idea of what we want. Just looking at the remarkably intelligent and spectacularly unintelligent should give a definite picture to work on. (When the spectacularly unintelligent is responsible for important resources a sense of urgency can easily be added.)

> integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms

There you reveal you may not be speaking about what others will call intelligence (just read the paragraph above).

Or, if you meant that "intelligence would just be cybernetics" (as was already a supposition in 1956), the problem remains that we are interested in an "ontology refiner", so the primary question would remain of how to create an ontology refiner from sheer cybernetics. And if it made sense to have a cybernetic implementation spawn it, instead of implementing the ontology refiner and its feedback parts in parallel directly.

Post reply on HN