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

AI

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#51

Post by catshirt »

skywhopper wrote: post #49

"But how do we make a computer program that decides what it wants to do? How do we make a computer decide to care on its own about learning to drive a car? Or write a novel?" Perhaps it'd be better to ask: why would we want a computer to do these things? I certainly do not want to live in a world where computers have their own motivations and desires and the ability to act on the same. Actually, I can put that more s…

you seem pretty convinced living computers would kill us all. this seems like a pretty big assumption to me?

Re: AI

#52

Post by chegra »

beat wrote: post #39
yogo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what set off the down votes but we can teach a computer to recognize characters for application in OCR. We also learned those characters from being taught in school and reading bad handwriting. We teach computers the same way. How are they supposed to magically recognize them especially since they didn't invent whatever language it is? Note that I'm referring to artificial general intelligence[0]. 0. http://…

This was back in the 1990s, but I worked in what was basically a data entry company, where the processing was a mixture of scanned forms (Scantron style) and human key entry. The project I was on was image scanning the forms for other purposes, so we had a neural net handwriting recognition system that we were comparing to human key entry at a large scale - millions of documents. What we found was that human key entr…

http://www.kurzweilai.net/vicarious-ai-breaks-captcha-turing...

I think they have done that.

Re: AI

#53

Post by maaku »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #41

There are many classes of problems in computer science and AI falls into one of my favorites. If today the world had a machine with infinite CPU power and infinite RAM we still wouldn't have a good AI. We just don't have the knowledge to utilize such resources to write an AI that could, for exampe, play League of Legends or Starcraft at a level beyond professional gamers. And it certainly couldn't write a best sellin…

With infinite CPU power and infinite RAM, fully general artificial intelligence is a trivial problem (see: Marcus Hutter's AIXI).

AI is an optimization problem: how do you build smart software within realistic constraints.

Re: AI

#54

Post by catshirt »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #41

There are many classes of problems in computer science and AI falls into one of my favorites. If today the world had a machine with infinite CPU power and infinite RAM we still wouldn't have a good AI. We just don't have the knowledge to utilize such resources to write an AI that could, for exampe, play League of Legends or Starcraft at a level beyond professional gamers. And it certainly couldn't write a best sellin…

genetic algorithms have already evolved the strongest SC2 builds on their own. why couldn't training them against each other build a pro level bot?

i realize there are a lot of mechanics the program would need to be aware of, but they're finite.

writing a bot that can learn to play Starcraft on it's own, on the other hand, is the harder problem.

Re: AI

#55

Post by TophWells »

dicroce wrote: post #28

One thing that crosses my mind whenever I imagine creating a human level intelligence is that it takes humans YEARS of constant stimulation to begin to exhibit intelligent behavior... Sometimes I wonder if we'll have the algorithm may before we realize it...

Probably. I doubt it's possible to look at a piece of code and evaluate whether it's worth feeding it the equivalent of ten years of basic education. If we ever write a program that exhibits "creativity, or desire, or whatever you want to call it" on a basic level after however many months the researcher can afford to run it for, then it'll suddenly get a lot of funding and time and potential for growth.

For all we know, we already have the Algorithm and all we need to do is run it for years on the best computer available "just to see what happens".

Re: AI

#56

Post by [deleted] »

Buttons840 wrote: post #35
mappum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it adds is the simple point, "be optimistic about strong AI in the near future".

So an article that lacks all substance besides "be optimistic about AI" is front page material on HN?

[deleted]

Re: AI

#57

Post by maaku »

temuze wrote: post #26

> "the part of your brain that processes input from your ears is also capable of learning to process input from your eyes. If we can just figure out this one general-purpose algorithm, programs may be able to learn general-purpose things." This is the Holy Grail of CS. I believe we're closer than most people would expect and I think it's going to be a race to the finish line.

For perception, maybe. The neocortex (hint: where we do everything we consider "thinking") operates on entirely different principles and is not interchangeable with perception.

Re: AI

#58

Post by seanmcdirmid »

codeulike wrote: post #45
forrestthewoods wrote: post #41

There are many classes of problems in computer science and AI falls into one of my favorites. If today the world had a machine with infinite CPU power and infinite RAM we still wouldn't have a good AI. We just don't have the knowledge to utilize such resources to write an AI that could, for exampe, play League of Legends or Starcraft at a level beyond professional gamers. And it certainly couldn't write a best sellin…

If you had a machine with infinite CPU power and infinite RAM you could _evolve_ an AI. Greg Egan wrote a great story about that: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/ Someone tries it, with mixed results.

Ah, but we weren't given infinite time also, so you might be able to evolve an AI, but it might take many millions of years (like it did with real life).

Re: AI

#60

Post by adammil »

ygmelnikova wrote: post #27

Explain to me how a brain can evolve, and yet not understand how itself functions?

Humans evolved for a long time before we understood anything about how our bodies work, so why would a brain have to understand itself to evolve?
Post reply on HN