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

81–90 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#81

Post by edanm »

catshirt wrote: post #51
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?

I think it's the other way around.

I assume that an AI will be more intelligent than us if we build it right. Then assuming that a randomly designed intelligence has the same goals as us is a huge assumption. Most humans don't even have the same goals, and we're 99% similar to each other.

In other words - the assumption that a random intelligence shares our goals is a much bigger assumption than that a random intelligence will be just like us.

Re: AI

#82

Post by reeses »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58
codeulike wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Fortunately, with infinite processing and storage, time is irrelevant. :)

Flip the switch and you'll have real intelligence (as opposed to our lazy Approximate Intelligence) just in time for the immediate heat death of the universe.

Re: AI

#83

Post by yconst »

Dear HN users: If you are even minimally interested in the topics that this post "covers", please, do yourselves a favour and open up any book about machine intelligence instead of reading such uninformed and negligent posts.

I urge you to, seriously.

Re: AI

#84

Post by Houshalter »

seanalltogether wrote: post #75
Houshalter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says we don't know how to measure intelligence? The simplest way would be just to select a problem that requires intelligence and measure how good it does at that problem.

That's just it. We know how to measure the efficiency and accuracy of a given task, but we don't know how to measure "intelligence"

That's what intelligence is, being good at a given task.

Re: AI

#85

Post by diminoten »

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...

We can stimulate a computer with the equivalent amount of information in much less time than years, though.

Re: AI

#86

Post by edanm »

If anyone is interested in AI, I highly recommend joining Less Wrong, a community started by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. He started the community to convince people to focus on the "friendly AI problem". [1] I actually recommend that everyone read LW, but especially if you're interested in AI.

[1] In a nutshell, the friendly AI problem is: assume we create an AI. It may rapidly become more intelligent than us, if we program it right. As soon as it becomes significanlty more intelligent, we will no longer be the most intelligent beings around, so the AI's goals will matter more than ours.

Therefore, we should really give it good goals that are compatible with what we want to happen. And since no one right now knows how to define "what humans want" good enough for writing it in code, then we'd better figure THAT out before building AI.

Re: AI

#87

Post by Houshalter »

rectangletangle wrote: post #73
Houshalter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says we don't know how to measure intelligence? The simplest way would be just to select a problem that requires intelligence and measure how good it does at that problem.

But what is a problem that specifically requires intelligence to solve? How do we know we're measuring intelligence, and not the programs aptitude for the particular problem?

Why does it matter? If if solves the problem then it's as good as if it was fully intelligent. Who cares what goes on inside the black box?

If you worried about it overfitting to a specific problem, give it lots of problems and weight the solutions by complexity. So you heavily favor simple algorithms that can learn to solve a large class of problems, over ones that are more adapted for those specific problems.

Re: AI

#88

Post by byehnbye »

I don't understand the logic behind these types of posts that add no value to the poster and the people discussing it in comments.

Is it a signaling mechanism to attract people working in this area? I'm sure you have already turned them off by showing your naivete. So no value to you.

To people trying to discuss this by racking their brains and looking for new ideas, Any one with a quint decent thought/idea will never share it here to enlighten us laymen. So no value to us too.

So, what's the point HN, and why all the upvotes?

Re: AI

#89

Post by dblacc »

AI was also the subject Gates pointed to when asked a similar question on the AMA thread the other week on Reddit, I believe.

Re: AI

#90

Post by timClicks »

edanm wrote: post #86

If anyone is interested in AI, I highly recommend joining Less Wrong, a community started by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. He started the community to convince people to focus on the "friendly AI problem". [1] I actually recommend that everyone read LW, but especially if you're interested in AI. [1] In a nutshell, the friendly AI problem is: assume we create an AI. It may rapidly become more intelligent than us, i…

Any suggestions for getting started in the LW community? Its barrier to entry means I can't seem to vote on anything, etc. It's quite intimidating really.
Post reply on HN