Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
1–10 of 181 posts
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#2Isn't that exactly what an agi would say once it takes over the brains of leading scientists.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#3Isn't that exactly what an agi would say once it takes over the brains of leading scientists.
No - it would post what you just said on HN instead. :)
Seriously - that's a wicked funny post you had there!
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#4Isn't that exactly what an agi would say once it takes over the brains of leading scientists.
No - it would post what you just said on HN instead. :) Seriously - that's a wicked funny post you had there!
Nice try, Mr. AI but you won’t escape detection by pretending to be a jokester who grew up in Boston.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#5Not to mention that we don't even know if general intelligence exists. All we know is that mental abilities tend to correlate, but not why they tend to correlate. And if you think about designing machines, in general, the idea of general intelligence is utterly ridiculous. Does a fast car have general speediness? Of course not, it has dozens or hundreds of discrete optimizations that all contribute in some degree to the car being faster.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#6As I always ask regarding this sort of story, why do we believe human intelligence is computable? The only answer I've heard is the materialist presupposition and sneers at any other metaphysic as "magic," which is not exactly a valid form of argument.
As an alternative, the human mind could be some sort of halting oracle. That's a well defined entity in computer science which cannot be reduced to Turing computation, thus cannot be any sort of AI, since we cannot create any form of computation more powerful than a Turing machine. How have we ruled out that possibility? As far as I can tell, we have not ruled it out, nor even tried.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#7As I always ask regarding this sort of story, why do we believe human intelligence is computable? The only answer I've heard is the materialist presupposition and sneers at any other metaphysic as "magic," which is not exactly a valid form of argument. As an alternative, the human mind could be some sort of halting oracle. That's a well defined entity in computer science which cannot be reduced to Turing computation,…
We know the brain is doing something - if you don't want to call it computation, then you might as well call it magic.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#8Behind every successful neural network is a human brain. Neural networks are a tool, an advanced tool for sure, but still just a tool. If we are looking for AGI, and assuming the brain is an AGI, then there are still many differences to resolve. For example, back propagation has not been observed in nature. Nor has gradient descent. So the core mechanisms for learning in nature have still to reveal their secrets.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#9I wonder to what extent the data being fed to these models are the issue. Or rather the problem is the systems that generate these data-sets and how representative of reality they are. If we make an app that involves humans and that data is used in a model - to what extent does user experience and other factors warp reality?
Maybe our existing methods are good enough given enough compute to reach AGI but our datasets are too low fidelity and non-representative of the problem space to reach desired results?
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#10Not to mention that we don't even know if general intelligence exists. All we know is that mental abilities tend to correlate, but not why they tend to correlate. And if you think about designing machines, in general, the idea of general intelligence is utterly ridiculous. Does a fast car have general speediness? Of course not, it has dozens or hundreds of discrete optimizations that all contribute in some degree to…
I'm not sure you and the OP mean the same thing by "General Intelligence".
It seems clear that autonomous systems which can apply their computational machinery to a diverse range of problems, and can, in a diverse range of settings, formulate instrumental goals as part of a plan to attain a final goal, do exist.
Because that's what humans are, at least some of the time.