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

To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#31

Post by humbledrone »

gliese1337 wrote: post #11

It's interesting that, while the system can learn lots of different games, you still have to give it the reward function special for each different game. This may seem obvious, and not much of a limitation- after all, lots of things that we think of as intelligent to varying degrees (different human beings, as well as members of other species) have wildly different ideas of what constitutes "reward", so that can't be…

Pac-Man was designed as a game for humans, with a priori knowledge of what kinds of things humans find rewarding. Thus the goal is obvious because it was designed to be similar to other human goals. Eat the food, don't get eaten. For this reason, it's not at all special that humans can determine the goal of the game.

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#32

Post by 3rd3 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #3

>This scientific field is called universal artificial intelligence How many times do we need to re-define the same concept? Artificial Intelligence, Human Level Artificial Intelligence, Artificial General Intelligence, Strong Artificial Intelligence etc.... Lets pick one as a community and stick with it. I thought AGI was in the lead there recently what with the conference, journal and high amount of web searches but…

I like computational intelligence since we still don’t really know what intelligence is and whether our kind of intelligence can be reproduced artificially (although there are some hints that it can be done).

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#33

Post by johnohara »

These are good generalized life lessons for humans as well.

Seek new knowledge, learn well, reason logically and inductively, recognize patterns and generalize, contemplate and plan for the future, converse and be social, survive, and strive for optimum health (my addition).

Very good advice in whether or not you're an automaton.

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#34

Post by JulianMorrison »

welldefined wrote: post #17

1. Do we have to engineer how much it's being rewarded in each game? 2. What happens in the infinite case? With pacman, there are always a finite number of choices at each state. 3. If it doesn't have to be told the rules, then how does it make decisions? In theory, it may be able to learn how to play jeopardy, but it may be way too inefficient in practice. Humans don't even start with a blank state. 4. I don't think…

Ockham's razor here isn't a "philosophical principle", it's math.

AIXI is doing a shortest-first search for predictors that match the observed environment, except that it's searching them all simultaneously in infinite parallel (that's why it's not computable) and what gets moved around is probability weighting. Ockham's razor describes the starting state of the weightings when there hasn't yet been any evidence: shorter predictors are given more weight.

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#35

Post by melloclello »

> AIXI now uses this model for approximately predicting the future and bases its decisions on these tentative forecasts. AIXI contemplates possible future behaviour: “If I do this action, followed by that action, etc, this or that will (un)likely happen, which could be good or bad. And if I do this other action sequence, it may be better or worse.”

What I want to know, is how long does it spend doing this? Does the duration of one of these cycles have to be manually chosen, or is it smart enough/self-aware enough to realise, okay, if I spend forever thinking about something, then nothing will happen?

I guess what I'm asking is, is the algorithm smart enough to eventually internalise its own model of itself?

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#36

Post by thom »

gliese1337 wrote: post #11

It's interesting that, while the system can learn lots of different games, you still have to give it the reward function special for each different game. This may seem obvious, and not much of a limitation- after all, lots of things that we think of as intelligent to varying degrees (different human beings, as well as members of other species) have wildly different ideas of what constitutes "reward", so that can't be…

Yeah, this strikes me as similar to - and basically no more intelligent than - Eurisko. Such is the progress we have made on AI in 40 years.

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#37

Post by ColinWright »

gjm11 wrote: post #12

Blogspam. Original source: http://theconversation.com/to-create-a-super-intelligent-mac... (If you happen to have encountered Marcus Hutter's AIXI before, there is nothing new there compared with any other presentation of his ideas.)

Looks like the mods have changed the URL to the original source.

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#38

Post by bradbeattie »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #8
JulianMorrison wrote: post #5

Am I the only one that gets a bit of a chill watching an UFAI play a game where it runs from its pursuers collecting resources until it gains the power to kill them?

To be sincere, I don't know what kind of Pac Man implementation was that. In the original game, each ghost has a personality [1], the ones in the video seem to just wander aimlessly, so it doesn't really tell much about strength of the algorithm to beat the game because it's not the same game. So, to comment on your dystopian prediction, I'm not sure this algorithm would do any better against humans, unless all we do…

More detailed information on how the ghosts behave: http://home.comcast.net/~jpittman2/pacman/pacmandossier.html...

Re: To create a super-intelligent machine, start with an equation

#39

Post by chongli »

humbledrone wrote: post #31
gliese1337 wrote: post #11

It's interesting that, while the system can learn lots of different games, you still have to give it the reward function special for each different game. This may seem obvious, and not much of a limitation- after all, lots of things that we think of as intelligent to varying degrees (different human beings, as well as members of other species) have wildly different ideas of what constitutes "reward", so that can't be…

Pac-Man was designed as a game for humans, with a priori knowledge of what kinds of things humans find rewarding. Thus the goal is obvious because it was designed to be similar to other human goals. Eat the food, don't get eaten. For this reason, it's not at all special that humans can determine the goal of the game.

Yeah. Try sticking a more abstract game like Go in front of a random person and see how that works out. Without being taught the rules, a human will have absolutely no idea how to proceed. This would put a human in pretty much the same boat as a computer.
Post reply on HN