Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
Because the title on HN is "AI", which makes it a small click target [1], prone to accidental upvotes.
AI
101–110 of 317 posts
Re: AI
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All I'm learning from this thread is that some people see infinite regression where others see tautology. edit: what I mean: Person 1: "What if we're just measuring the color of the sky? What if we're just measuring blueness? What if we're just measuring a wavelength of light? ... ..." Person 2: "The sky looks blue."
What do you mean?
Re: AI
#103I'm just going to stick this out there because I'm a futurist and it's my role to share with others what I'm thinking about. What I share may be flat out wrong, scary, half assed, or appear to be crazy. So be it. We've advanced a lot in the last 100 years. We're starting to see a bigger picture forming with the advent of compute and networking capabilities. Combining simple elements of these basics give rise to surpr…
> It's not a huge leap of logic to assume some parts of our brain operate at a quantum level. To the best of our knowledge it is still a pretty large leap of logic.
It's definitely a leap, but there's a decent amount of information (not proof however) on the subject laying around. We still don't understand how the brain brings about consciousness. I guess I should say it's not a huge leap to assume it has something to do with other things we also don't understand. Given quantum effect and number theory still elude us in areas, it's a decent approach to assume they might be related.
I've debugged problems in my code that, at first glance, appear to be unrelated to each other. Given something is slightly off in one area isn't a proof something of in another area is related, but it's a good place to start looking.
Re: AI
#104I believe human-level general intelligence (and beyond) is already inevitable, even if we don't make significant developments in "solving" intelligence. Projects that are already developing stuff like this (e.g. IBM Blue Brain) are just copying the human brain as closely as possible. Of course, this isn't as efficient as it could be (they simulate it all at the molecular level, so you can only get 1 neuron per CPU).…
They don't simulate it at the molecular level. It takes super computers like DE Shaw's Anton (hundreds of customized cores specifically designed for molecular simulation) weeks to simulate a few milliseconds of one single protein in water. IBM's approach is at a much higher level and is taking way more shortcuts.
You're right, they take a lot of shortcuts, but the point I was making is that simulating parts of organic chemistry probably isn't inherently necessary for intelligence.
Re: AI
#105Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
I upvoted because HN does not have a separate 'save' feature like Reddit, and upvoting is a quick and easy way to tag it as "read this eventually". So I reflexively upvote anything that looks even vaguely interesting. In this case, I did read the article, and would probably have upvoted it anyway. Why? Because it stands to serve as the seed of an interesting discussion. Personally, I don't give a fuck if the article…
I saved 59 stories in the last 7 days. I don't expect to be able to find any of them in the future (in more than 1 month). The only realistic way to find old stories is to use the search feature, if you can remember a few keywords.
Re: AI
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not a huge leap of logic to assume some parts of our brain operate at a quantum level. To the best of our knowledge it is still a pretty large leap of logic.
It's definitely a leap, but there's a decent amount of information (not proof however) on the subject laying around. We still don't understand how the brain brings about consciousness. I guess I should say it's not a huge leap to assume it has something to do with other things we also don't understand. Given quantum effect and number theory still elude us in areas, it's a decent approach to assume they might be relat…
As far as I know there is a decent amount of information against the fact that brains are quantum computers.
On the other hand there is a talk by Hinton on youtube [1] that sheds interesting light on some variants of deep learning and the way the brain uses (classical) noise.
Re: AI
#107If 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.
Read or at least skim through the sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences). If you are just there for the AI stuff the Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate has a lot of good posts: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Hanson-Yudkowsky_AI-Foom_...
Re: AI
#108I believe human-level general intelligence (and beyond) is already inevitable, even if we don't make significant developments in "solving" intelligence. Projects that are already developing stuff like this (e.g. IBM Blue Brain) are just copying the human brain as closely as possible. Of course, this isn't as efficient as it could be (they simulate it all at the molecular level, so you can only get 1 neuron per CPU).…
"So... why didn't the flapping-wing designs work? Birds flap wings and they fly. The flying machine flaps its wings. Why, oh why, doesn't it fly?"
http://lesswrong.com/lw/vx/failure_by_analogy/
A very relevant article, both to the main topic and bird/airplane example.
Yes, biology has solved some problems and can suggest some solutions, but we can't go cargo-cult on it and expect things to work just because they look similar.
Re: AI
#109I think going about it from a complex algorithm point of view is the wrong approach.
We should, instead, be concentrating our efforts on two things - sensing, and reacting. The predictability of the reaction doesn't matter; all that matters is that the machine reacts. Everything else will need to depend on evolutionary processes, which requires a third criterion - changing reaction based on prior data.
If the previous reaction did not lead to a negative result ("negative" meaning detrimental to one or more arbitrary values), then the reaction can continue to the same stimulus. If the previous reaction, however, elicited a strong positive result, then the reaction should be encouraged. Similarly, if it triggered a strong negative response, it should be avoided.
To a degree, you could do this without any kind of "operating system," just by using sensory data as inputs in a complex circuit.
At least, that's how I would approach it. I know nothing about A.I. research.
Re: AI
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can stimulate a computer with the equivalent amount of information in much less time than years, though.
We probably can't. Unless it's an extremely fast algorithm, we don't have the processing power to make it run faster than our brain. We'll can in a couple of decades, probably. But not now.
Brain seems to be slow (I read it was measured to run at 200Hz tops), but it's extremely parallelized and caches the livjng shit out of everything.