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

151–160 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#151

Post by catshirt »

Houshalter wrote: post #74
catshirt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because you are made of atoms that can more efficiently be used for something else. Morality (and all human values) is a purely human concept that evolved in the specific conditions of human evolution (and even just our specific culture.) AIs are not anthropomorphic, they don't have to have anything like human minds or values.

the idea that there is a better application for my atoms seems subjective/human too

Re: AI

#152

Post by nl »

electrograv wrote: post #99
nl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a candidate algorithm[1], which is successful in a broad range of applications[2][3][4]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning#Convolutional_neu... [2] http://deeplearning.net/reading-list/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning#Results [4] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/google-x-neural-ne...

"Deep Learning" is not itself a candidate for anything, because it's not any single algorithm, but a category of approaches. Deep Learning generally refers to machine learning algorithms that deal with stacking multiple layers of simpler functions to enable more complicated functions, and optimizing all the parameters to best fit your training set and generalize to new samples (the hard part). Though it usually refer…

I actually linked to convolutional neural networks on the Deep Learning page as the algorithm.

But I do agree with your point.

Re: AI

#153

Post by feralmoan »

I dunno, the definition of intelligence is biased by our own ability to comprehend and therefore profoundly slim (even IQ can be gamed, and most people puke at emotional/lizard brain intelligence) so large chances "science" either under or overshoots its "stakeholder aware" analysis and doesn't know functional self preserving, iterative enhancement intellect when its looking it in the face. You know us monkeys, running around derping science with wacky wavy hands going 'Hai Dolphin What You do jump hoop!'. AI, rockin the casbah. Maybe one day!

Re: AI

#154

Post by feralmoan »

byehnbye wrote: post #88

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 neve…

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

I guess SV types get a little hot for AI based utopian/dystopian succession when they're the only ones who could possibly gain from such an outcome.

Re: AI

#155

Post by jk4930 »

"But artificial general intelligence might work, and if it does, it will be the biggest development in technology ever."

I'd like to point interested readers to the AGI Conference series[1], the Open Cognition Project[2], and a mostly outdated (2009) but still useful list of everything AGI[3].

[1] http://agi-conf.org/

[2] http://wiki.opencog.org/w/The_Open_Cognition_Project

[3] http://linas.org/agi.html

Re: AI

#156

Post by lbenes »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #101
elwell wrote: post #10

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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law

Yes, that's exactly how this article gained my upvote. For misclicks and link-bait, I would love to see HN add the ability to retract votes from articles. I have many "saved stories" that I'd love to remove from my list.

Re: AI

#157

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Houshalter wrote: post #70
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).

He said infinite CPU power which implies infinite number of iterations. In real life it would probably take a lot more than millions of years (because computers are too slow to simulate populations of millions of minds.)

Does infinite energy (as infinite CPU cycles) really translate into immediate time? My physics isn't great, but I thought energy was related to mass, while entropy was related to time.

Re: AI

#158

Post by lgas »

mappum wrote: post #104
cma wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Likewise, since all computation is equivalent[1], organic chemistry itself is not necessary for intelligence and in fact could be viewed as the "hard way" to achieve it :)

[1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquival...

Re: AI

#159

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

lbenes wrote: post #156
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the title on HN is "AI", which makes it a small click target [1], prone to accidental upvotes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law

Yes, that's exactly how this article gained my upvote. For misclicks and link-bait, I would love to see HN add the ability to retract votes from articles. I have many "saved stories" that I'd love to remove from my list.

280 votes and counting. I'm betting this will stay on the first page for a long time.

Re: AI

#160

Post by XorNot »

Houshalter wrote: post #95
marcosdumay wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we'd better figure THAT out before building AI. Why don't we just give that task to the AI? It'll be smarter than us... Maybe the problem is that people are too easy to understand: We want "Brave New World", but we don't want to know about it, or that we want it.

That's a viable approach to solving the problem. The question is, how do you trust the unfriendly AI to give you a correct solution?

Make friends with it? The problem with starting to think "we need to code it to like us" is that that isn't AI. You don't code people to like you, you act friendly towards them and the same problem will apply for the first generations of true AIs (things which will emerge from complicated systems, rather then be deliberately assembled).
Post reply on HN