Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

ai100.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#11

Post by ThomPete »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #6
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

What immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."

This is the major problem with the line of reasoning.

A tiger doesn't need to be self aware or have intent to be dangerous.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#12

Post by nether »

drum wrote: post #5

Meta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The t…

Technical reports can have many figures that take up many pages, so wordcount works better here.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#13

Post by Practicality »

"On the other hand, if society approaches AI with a more open mind, the technologies emerging from the field could profoundly transform society for the better in the coming decades."

It's funny reading reports like this: Society never moves as a single unit. There will be groups that hate it as pure evil and groups that treat it as a religion that will save us and solve all problems. Most people will be somewhere in between.

I mean, I agree, if society all agreed it would have profound effects. But when has the whole world moved as one on any issue?

What we're going to get from society is a heterogeneous response. We can plan accordingly. Sure, a majority may trend one way or another and that can speed things up or slow it down, but you will need to deal with the extremes regardless.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#14

Post by zardo »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #6
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

What immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."

What about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#15

Post by riboflava »

ThomPete wrote: post #10
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

AGI progress is unlikely to be limited by some exponential curve that we're just not far enough along though. Rather it seems more limited by some key insight no one has found yet. Sure we'll be able to retrofit some exponential curve onto it after the fact, since when it appears it will change everything drastically. But this is in contrast to e.g. the human genome project which started out with the expectation of a specific exponential curve to give an estimate for project completion. Your more general point I agree with, however, it's not enough to dismiss the report.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#16

Post by maxerickson »

ThomPete wrote: post #10
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

Self driving cars were serious research more than 10 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

Several vehicles finished the 2005 course. The one that finished first won a $2 million prize.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#17

Post by Animats »

ThomPete wrote: post #10
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

"Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about."

That changed on the second day of the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Suddenly, there were lots of self-driving cars running around. The sudden change in the attitude of the reporters there was remarkable.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#18

Post by argonaut »

ThomPete wrote: post #10
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#19

Post by Inlinked »

argonaut wrote: post #18
ThomPete wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go

And for the self-driving cars:

http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#20

Post by ThomPete »

maxerickson wrote: post #16
ThomPete wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

Self driving cars were serious research more than 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge Several vehicles finished the 2005 course. The one that finished first won a $2 million prize.

Yes but it wasn't even remotely seen as possible by the masses for decades to come. It's already here now.
Post reply on HN