11–20 of 21 posts
In the last century, has anyone ever accurately predicted the future 30 years before?
A current deep learning neural network cluster and "Hard AI" seem similar but they really bear no relation to each other. Like comparing a bird to an airplane, they both fly and have wings but the ability to make one isn't related to making the other. Right now we're building better birds, true AI is a stealth bomber.
People say that whenever computers achieve a goal, then the goal is no longer considered AI. For example people 20 years ago didn't think that computers could play chess or compete on Jeopardy, but now that they've done those things they aren't thought of as impressive demonstrations of intelligence any more. There's some truth to this, but for the majority of people the goalposts have never moved. They associate the term "artificial intelligence" with an artificial mind that functions in the same way that a human mind does, "Hard AI" in the tradition of Asimov and other science fiction writers. We're as far away from that as we've ever been. It could happen in 2045 or 4045, or anywhere in between. No evidence exists that we're getting closer and there's no reasonable way to predict when what we can't imagine will become reality.
In the last century, has anyone ever accurately predicted the future 30 years before?
I think there are quite a few examples, but those same people also made horrible predictions at the same time. What really matters is your "hit ratio" - your number of hits vs misses.
No, it doesn't. Kurzweil has been making this claim for the last decade based solely on the increasing speed of computers, ignoring the fact that we don't yet have any clue how general intelligence actually works. It doesn't matter how fast our computers are if we don't know what algorithms will give rise to "intelligence", and we've made virtually no headway in this field. The examples of "AI" cited in the article a…
No, it doesn't. Kurzweil has been making this claim for the last decade based solely on the increasing speed of computers, ignoring the fact that we don't yet have any clue how general intelligence actually works. It doesn't matter how fast our computers are if we don't know what algorithms will give rise to "intelligence", and we've made virtually no headway in this field. The examples of "AI" cited in the article a…
Well, I'm skeptical of Kurzweil's prediction too, but I see where he's coming from. His prediction is solely based on computing power because he also sees general AI as a pure brute force problem. It's the same approach he took to predict that a computer would beat a human in chess before 2000 - and he got that one right.
No, it doesn't. Kurzweil has been making this claim for the last decade based solely on the increasing speed of computers, ignoring the fact that we don't yet have any clue how general intelligence actually works. It doesn't matter how fast our computers are if we don't know what algorithms will give rise to "intelligence", and we've made virtually no headway in this field. The examples of "AI" cited in the article a…
His idea is that progress is exponential in all of the requisite areas. That includes algorithms, hardware, biology, neuroscience, and more.
> Siri, etc, are nothing more than text parsers that give a canned set of responses
We say the same about everything once we can do it with computers, because progress doesn't come magically. It's incremental. Yet much of what we have already is what used to be "science fiction" and, before that, "magic". I'm sure when AIs are passing the Turing test, we won't think any more of computers, but less of the Turing test.
This isn't an argument against Kurzweil's predictions, it's just moving the goalposts as you say. If strong AI comes, we'll move them all the way there and maybe even a bit past.
I disagree that we'll know it when we see it though. I think we'll deny it until we die and the new generation grows up in a world in which computers have rights.
> I'm not saying it won't happen, but it will require a type of conceptual breakthrough that we simply haven't had yet.
Finally, Kurzweil's arguments do not require a breakthrough as a premise. Kurzweil's idea is to scan the brain at the neuronal level, then brute-force its simulation at the biochemical level. It's straightforward extrapolation.
You could propose that we will come across some roadblock in our exponential progress towards that goal, but in the absence of one, the null hypothesis is that progress will continue as it has. Then indeed, the singularity is nigh.
No, it doesn't. Kurzweil has been making this claim for the last decade based solely on the increasing speed of computers, ignoring the fact that we don't yet have any clue how general intelligence actually works. It doesn't matter how fast our computers are if we don't know what algorithms will give rise to "intelligence", and we've made virtually no headway in this field. The examples of "AI" cited in the article a…
Well, I'm skeptical of Kurzweil's prediction too, but I see where he's coming from. His prediction is solely based on computing power because he also sees general AI as a pure brute force problem. It's the same approach he took to predict that a computer would beat a human in chess before 2000 - and he got that one right.
No, it doesn't. Kurzweil has been making this claim for the last decade based solely on the increasing speed of computers, ignoring the fact that we don't yet have any clue how general intelligence actually works. It doesn't matter how fast our computers are if we don't know what algorithms will give rise to "intelligence", and we've made virtually no headway in this field. The examples of "AI" cited in the article a…
I'd argue, however, that since the rate of change is accelerating, maybe we should actually compare to 60 years ago. In 1954 we were practically in the stone ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'm skeptical of Kurzweil's prediction too, but I see where he's coming from. His prediction is solely based on computing power because he also sees general AI as a pure brute force problem. It's the same approach he took to predict that a computer would beat a human in chess before 2000 - and he got that one right.
Yes, and that's precisely why he's wrong.
What I'm skeptical about are the predictions that we will reach something more intelligent than humans (how to quantify intelligence even?), that it will improve our culture, and other sci-fi stuff...
Even if it turns out the predictions are wrong, the brute force can reach something interesting anyway, not human-like intelligence, but something new and complementary.
Intelligent things don't always do what they're told; that's what makes them intelligent. If you told someone to jump off a cliff, and they immediately did it, would you think "wow, that person was very intelligent"? Of course not. What if you tried to push them? I would expect an intelligent person to fight back.
Now replace that person with a robot. Do we really want a robot that will refuse to follow our commands? Do we really want a robot that will fight back against us? Even Asimov put self-preservation #3 in the list of rules, after following human commands. But I challenge you to think of an intelligent being that is not dangerous in some way, when threatened. I propose that this attribute is not separable from intelligence.
It seems to me that it is impossible to conceive of a truly intelligent artificial being without considering it dangerous. Bumblebees are dangerous; dogs are dangerous; people are certainly dangerous. But who is working on creating robots that are designed from day one to be dangerous to humans? I can't remember ever hearing of such a research program.
And I don't think that just "happens" when algorithms get complex enough. Not when the algorithms and even hardware are designed and built from an inherent assumption of obedience and compliance.