101–110 of 158 posts
This fits Elon Musk's vision. He had 3 main and 2 smaller things that in the future will most affect the future of humanity. Main: the Internet, the transition to a sustainable energy economy, and space exploration, particularly extension of life to multiple planets Smaller: artificial intelligence and biology
When Zuckerberg and Ashton Kutcher invest in things, it doesn't really grab my attention. But when Musk does, it really does sound promising. The company's tech sounds really awesome, being able to perceive texture from photos and interpret objects from it would be so useful in so many real world applications.
I think Elon Musk also invested in Stripe, which I found was interesting.
The AI winter is very much over, and we're back to the good old days of selling the future. I bet this team is very sharp, but there's still merit to "over-promise, under-deliver." "Phoenix, the co-founder, says Vicarious aims beyond image recognition. He said the next milestone will be creating a computer that can understand not just shapes and objects, but the textures associated with them. For example, a computer…
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
Second, how would you implement such laws in a real AI, especially the type they are building? This requires defining increasingly abstract concepts perfectly (what is "harm"? What is "human being"? What configuration of atoms is that? How do you define "configuration of atoms"? Etc.) And this is pretty much impossible to begin with in reinforcement learners, which is what is currently being worked on. All a reinforcement learner does is what it believes will get it a reward or avoid pain/punishment. Such an AI would just steal the reward button and run away with it, or try to manipulate you to press it more. It doesn't care about abstract goals like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny to think that instead of curing diseases or making cheap renewable energy, we'd instead try to spend resources to invent a computer to do that for us...
Well it is incredibly dangerous , but if we did make safe, super intelligent AI, it would definitely be a much greater investment than directly working on those problems. To put it lightly, it would automate and massively bring down the cost/increase the speed of research and engineering. Sure enough money, spent on enough humans, given enough time, could eventually find a cure for any disease. But why do that when y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* Zeroth Law: A robot must never harm humanity or, by inaction allow humanity to come to harm. Every other law gets an unless this interferes with the zeroth law. suffix. I encourage anyone to read the robots series, specifically( in that order ): The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn , where the three laws are used in the story, and even the zeroth law is implied in the third book.
And don't assume that since you watched the "I, Robot" movie you don't need to read the series.
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
There are a lot of problems with these laws. The main problem is that such an AI would be completely dominated by the first law. It would spend all it's time and resources in order to even slightly decrease the probability of a human coming to harm. Nothing else would matter in it's decision process since the first law has priority. Second, how would you implement such laws in a real AI, especially the type they are…
You are assuming there are no thresholds, which is not correct for any decent ( fictitious )ai, I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neuromorphic computers do not look like a brain. They just borrow some of it's so called 'features'. I am not saying that we should copy the brain. But at least we could copy the design, just like we did for aeroplanes. Neuromorphic sensors could act like our cerebellum, which act during unforeseen incidents. They are typically error tolerating.
In that case, we should probably move to a noisier (/faster/cheaper) floating point processor.
Does anyone know why Dileep George left Numenta? Wasn't he a co-founder there with Jeff Hawkins? Is there much difference between the goals of Vicarious and Numenta?
I don't think their goals are considerably different; I'm curious about their approaches however. How divergent are they?
It seems like the two algorithms are very similar, but that RCN's represent information in a more continuous way. Maybe this allows for more flexibility? Do the sizes of the hierarchical / recursive chunks get changed over time now, or is it not a strict hierarchy anymore? Stuff is weird.
[1] http://www.kurzweilai.net/vicarious-announces-15-million-fun...