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

A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

darpa.mil

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

#11

Post by davidmanheim »

hans1729 wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #5

"Contextual adaptation" is what they want, but that doesn't mean it's coming in the near future. However, this does mean that funding for research on it will be available. As I've said for years, the big lack in AI is in the "common sense" and unstructured manipulation area. Nobody can build something with squirrel levels of manipulation and agility, even in simulation. Robot manipulation in unstructured situations i…

> Nobody can build something with squirrel levels of manipulation and agility, even in simulation. Isn’t that what alpha go or the StarCraft league are? Organic strategies in well-defined contexts (action options of the squirrel at Tn)? “Squirrel” is a nice reference frame.

No - those systems simulate "control" at the level of giving commands, not actual motor control. So practically, current AI can win at Go and play at superhuman levels, but still cannot drive a car as well as most adults.

Re: A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

#12

Post by zardo »

davidmanheim wrote: post #11
hans1729 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody can build something with squirrel levels of manipulation and agility, even in simulation. Isn’t that what alpha go or the StarCraft league are? Organic strategies in well-defined contexts (action options of the squirrel at Tn)? “Squirrel” is a nice reference frame.

No - those systems simulate "control" at the level of giving commands, not actual motor control. So practically, current AI can win at Go and play at superhuman levels, but still cannot drive a car as well as most adults.

You can sit down for a game of Go or StarCraft against an AI, and it will wipe the floor with you.

But if you want it control a robot that's going to bring out a pot of tea while you play, you'll be wiping the floor.

Re: A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

#13

Post by jll29 »

It's good to see a main funding agency's perspective.

As a researcher, I like their non-hype way of defining AI as "programmed ability", which is accurate and realistic -- also puts AI further apart from real intelligence, which means unanticipated activities.

I would like to know more what they see as "abstracting", from their perspective.

We haven't got much further in our scientific understanding of intelligence - if you bought a psychology text book today and ten years ago there wouldn't be much of a breakthrough change detectable in terms of modeling cognition. And as impressive as some computer science AI models perform certain tasks, I haven't been taken by surprise by them asking me a question out of the blue, which is one of my personal litmus tests for intelligence.

Re: A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

#14

Post by hiddencost »

I wonder who is trying to get what funded? "Second wave" is going gangbusters, despite Gary Marcus' every-six-months rant; the review of statistical learning is reasonable given a barely technical audience, but the summary of "third wave" seems designed to extract large amounts of funding from people who aren't up to date on the state of the field.

Re: A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]

#15

Post by stuckkeys »

zardo wrote: post #12
davidmanheim wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - those systems simulate "control" at the level of giving commands, not actual motor control. So practically, current AI can win at Go and play at superhuman levels, but still cannot drive a car as well as most adults.

You can sit down for a game of Go or StarCraft against an AI, and it will wipe the floor with you. But if you want it control a robot that's going to bring out a pot of tea while you play, you'll be wiping the floor.

This made me giggle like a dumbass. Thanks. I participate on the SC2 AI community. It is a-lot of fun. I use Python and CPP for my ML. The game matches are so unpredictable which makes the project questionable because the AI indeed smashes any opponent.
Post reply on HN