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

111–120 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#111

Post by derefr »

rdl wrote: post #44
elwell wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but can we imagine a better algorithm?

I've always assumed any real machine intelligence would be scalable to the point where even if it started at a millionth the functionality of a human, it would end up far surpassing humanity.

Why do you believe this?

We don't see animals self-improving to become humans (in the "consciously deciding what revisions to make to their mental architecture at each step" sense), so why would you expect electronic animal-level minds to be able to do the same to become electronic human-level minds, or beyond?

Personally, I doubt even electronic human-equivalent minds would be capable of self-improvement. After all, we are not smart enough to build AIs better than us (yet), so why should electronic minds only as smart as we are be capable of that, either?

A possible answer to that, I suppose, would be that the electronic mind would have far more input/training data fed to it per second than biological minds receive, and far more time to "work on" that sense data to derive patterns between each decision-step.

Re: AI

#112

Post by twoodfin »

Houshalter wrote: post #80
twoodfin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[automated test] is the hard part.

Not really. Just pick your favorite AI problem and see how well it does on that. Pick a bunch of AI problems and see how well it does on all of them. Weight the algorithms by simplicity if you are worried about it over-fitting.

With this hypothetical infinite speed computer you will get solutions that are perfect matches for your test cases but essentially random for all other inputs.

Re: AI

#114

Post by davidrangel »

From a pure layman's perspective: if you believe in evolution, then what separates us from a reptile (as mentioned in the post) is almost certainly something we can figure out and replicate. There is nothing "special" there.

So if you believe computers today already have the "intelligence" of a reptile, or a toddler (i.e., ability to play pong), or something along those lines, it's only a matter of time before a computer has the intelligence of a full-blown adult human (and soon thereafter much more).

Our level of intelligence/awareness seems magical only because we haven't fully understood it yet. That will change.

Re: AI

#115

Post by seanalltogether »

Houshalter wrote: post #84
seanalltogether wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My current laptop has 100s of programs capable of performing 1000s of tasks but I wouldn't say it's intelligent. If we do want to call that intelligence, then we need a new term to describe the search for machines that can mimic human decisions.

Re: AI

#116

Post by TeMPOraL »

reeses wrote: post #82
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ask it quickly: can entropy be reversed?

Re: AI

#117

Post by dinkumthinkum »

davidrangel wrote: post #114

From a pure layman's perspective: if you believe in evolution, then what separates us from a reptile (as mentioned in the post) is almost certainly something we can figure out and replicate. There is nothing "special" there. So if you believe computers today already have the "intelligence" of a reptile, or a toddler (i.e., ability to play pong), or something along those lines, it's only a matter of time before a comp…

No I don't think "belief" in evolution implies that at all. That's a big jump.

Re: AI

#118

Post by jcfrei »

> I am quite confident that we’ll be able to make computer programs that perform specific complex tasks very well. But how do we make a computer program that decides what it wants to do?

Are we so sure that "we" really are in charge of what we want to do? I believe a lot of our desires and ambitions are hardcoded into our brains and we just project them onto present goals, like getting a promotion or learning how to play the piano, etc. ultimately all these desires cater to the same few desires we always had and were born with: developing a sense of social belonging and intimacy.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness

Re: AI

#119

Post by rdl »

derefr wrote: post #111
rdl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always assumed any real machine intelligence would be scalable to the point where even if it started at a millionth the functionality of a human, it would end up far surpassing humanity.

Why do you believe this? We don't see animals self-improving to become humans (in the "consciously deciding what revisions to make to their mental architecture at each step" sense), so why would you expect electronic animal-level minds to be able to do the same to become electronic human-level minds, or beyond? Personally, I doubt even electronic human-equivalent minds would be capable of self-improvement. After all,…

Because (naively) I'd assume it's some kind of software running on computers, and one can generally improve performance of that by buying more hardware or using better technology (or shorter lived components, or better cooling, or whatever).

If humans created an AI to solve some kind of open-ended problem, where "more AI" made the solution better, there would be every incentive to spend the money on more or better hardware for it. It's not clear that a shark would gain much by being 100x smarter, particularly if the metabolic cost were high; for a lot of human problems, spending 100x more on hardware/power/etc. for a 10% better solution would be quite desirable.

Re: AI

#120

Post by [deleted] »

bovermyer wrote: post #109

I 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 previou…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN