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

191–200 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#191

Post by nitrogen »

lnanek2 wrote: post #178
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…

If the AI is more intelligent, I'd prefer it take over anyway, even if it gets rid of us. When you have a child, do you want the child to stay at home and do what you say forever? Or do you want the child to succeed as much as possible? I want the latter.

I think it would be a bit different if the child (AI) takes all your food and kicks you out of your own house ;-P.

Re: AI

#192

Post by welldefined »

hooande wrote: post #173

Many people see Artificial General Intelligence as a panacea. The idea is, "We'll create artificially intelligent scientists who will solve all of our other problems for us!". I think that future generations will look back on this as a modern version of alchemy. If blogs had existed centuries ago I'm sure that people would have called the transmutation of metal the most important trend of their time. This isn't to de…

Humans exhibit "intelligence". Humans exist in the physical world. There is some physical process which produces "intelligence". A priori, there is no reason to believe this process cannot be understood, engineered, and re-implemented (whether it be in silicon or in a biological way).

Your argument could have been made for every piece of technology before it existed. Here's what scientists, engineers, and mathematicians do: they either keep trying, or they find a reason why it's impossible.

Re: AI

#193

Post by sushirain »

sama wrote: post #145
dcre wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've felt this way about every Sam Altman piece that's been posted in the past week (and possibly every one I've ever read). And I feel guilty because PG speaks so highly of him. And then I feel guilty for feeling guilty.

don't feel guilty. I'm blogging to practice writing. It surprises me at least as much as you when articles like this do well on HN and makes me feel embarrassed I didn't make them better (there are some posts I work really hard on and hope people like, but this was not one of them)

Artificial general intelligence is not coming in the next, say, 30 years. And I am a big fan. A quick analogy: note that we can't even build an ant. It will take decades after that accomplishment to build a human level intelligence.

Re: AI

#194

Post by Houshalter »

onnoonno wrote: post #188
Houshalter wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, I don't know what the goal of an AI will be. But if it does anything at all, it's more likely to be indifferent to humans than compatible with our goals. An AI programmed to solve a difficult optimization problem might convert the entire mass of the solar system into a giant computer. An AI programmed for self-preservation would try to destroy every tiny possible threat to it's existence, and store as mu…

And then the question is - if the AI is more intelligent than us humans, it must surely be able to figure out itself, and it improve itself, includings its own goals, too?

Why would it change it's own goals? That would violate it's current goals, and therefore try to avoid that action.

Can you change yourself to be a sociopath? Would you? Would you make yourself a perfect nihilist?

Re: AI

#195

Post by anigbrowl »

hooande wrote: post #173

Many people see Artificial General Intelligence as a panacea. The idea is, "We'll create artificially intelligent scientists who will solve all of our other problems for us!". I think that future generations will look back on this as a modern version of alchemy. If blogs had existed centuries ago I'm sure that people would have called the transmutation of metal the most important trend of their time. This isn't to de…

we don't have a single example of an application that can handle a task that it hasn't been specifically trained and tested for

Get up and go look in the bathroom mirror, there's your example. If you're saying that our intelligence/consciousness derives from some secret sauce, then you're essentially making John Searle's Chinese Room argument and it's on you to show what the difference is between sapience and the appearance of sapience.

Re: AI

#196

Post by igravious »

debt wrote: post #170
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #132

If the only goal is an 'artificial' consciousness, it might be more prudent to consider a functional definition of what consciousness is and try to build that. We didn't make computers by modeling how individual neurons perform mathematical calculations. On the other hand, if you want to go the biological route, there's some awesome work to be done. If I were to study consciousness, here's the question I would ask: h…

We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. I think building an artificial consciousness is going too far. Artificial intelligence is…

You've got that exactly backwards.

For the longest time it was not even known that the mind inhabited the brain. We've only known about the biology of the brain beginning with cell theory and onwards. Yet we have an entire vocabulary relating to mental states receding so far into the distant past that we don't know how far back language predates using language to speak about mental states. When you really think about it neuro-biology is very recent and still nascent, we've been thinking about thinking for a long long time.

Re: AI

#197

Post by aliakbarkhan »

aragot wrote: post #136
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.

I personnaly don't think the brain could be as intelligent if it were only a part of it, like if had 3 senses instead of 5 for example: The emulation of a sense by the others might be necessary to bootstrap the system. So we might just be on the wrong path when we try to teach a small machine to learn. And maybe, once you have a fully functional brain, that it constantly derives out of bounds. Like sudden overheating…

The amount of rampant bulshitting here by obviously unqualified people is amazing. If you don't even know that humans do not, in fact, have five senses, I'm not sure I can take your post seriously even as unqualified speculation.

Re: AI

#198

Post by erik14th »

Humans have a drive, a raison d'etre, intelligence being only a mean to fulfill that drive.

Thing is that drive is uncertain/subjective.

Learning can't be an objective by itself, intelligence is just a tool, from that perspective you can say there are already AI, like targeted ads, it learns about you and acts accordingly.

So to have a "generalist" AI, like human's intelligence is general, you'd have to have an objective like staying alive and build up from that.

Re: AI

#199

Post by nikbackm »

hmsimha wrote: post #78
altcognito wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is a software problem as well as a hardware problem. It's ridiculous to assume we understand the underlying model of the function of the human brain in general. We don't even understand the physics of it all yet. Be optimistic about AI, but don't be fooled -- it's not as basic as hooking up transistors and thinking they behave like neurons.

Theoretically maaku is right. With infinite RAM and CPU you would just have to execute every random string of bytes until one of them happens to be strong AI. Of course, there's probably less than 1% chance of it being friendly...

But how would you recognize those bytes?

Re: AI

#200

Post by edanm »

Houshalter wrote: post #93
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…

Defining human values completely and absolutely is an extremely difficult problem that might not even have a solution. AI on the other hand is probably inevitable sometime within the next century.

Which is why the people working on Friendly AI are so worried.
Post reply on HN