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

Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#101

Post by [deleted] »

buboard wrote: post #64
hacker_9 wrote: post #8

Behind 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.

Behind every brain is a successful neural network. Or at least that's the promise of connectionism.

[deleted]

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#102

Post by taneq »

mindgam3 wrote: post #96
taneq wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they mean the two in the same way. AlphaZero is "general purpose artificial intelligence" because if you formulate a problem in the right way and then throw a server cluster at it for a few weeks, it often comes back with pretty good performance at solving that problem. It's probably our current best crack at creating AGI, but it's a long way from a machine that can take a very high level goal and figur…

“if you formulate a [very specific type of problem involving perfect information games] in the right way”

Hey, at least it's a type of problem rather than a problem itself.

I haven't studied enough myself yet to know the answer to this one, but what are the differences between AlphaZero and the OpenAI 5 DOTA team's approach? Would it be possible to apply AlphaZero to DOTA?

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#103

Post by sanxiyn »

anonytrary wrote: post #23

Tangential: This title is weird. As if no one but the top minds in AI didn't know this? This isn't big news to anyone who has done even just a modicum of AI research.

Shane Legg (DeepMind cofounder) is public about predicting AGI at 2028. http://www.vetta.org/2011/12/goodbye-2011-hello-2012/

My impression is this is common among DeepMind folks and not an aberration. (See also dwiel's comment elsewhere.) It is super weird for me that Demis Hassabis says AGI is nowhere close. Is he lying? Or does he mean 10 years is not close?

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#105

Post by brokensegue »

yters wrote: post #19
frabcus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roger Penrose basically suggests what you say in "The Emperor's New Mind". Roughly, it says that the brain (likely, according to him) uses quantum computation, and so we can't make an AI out of a classical computer. The practical flaw with this argument, of course, is that you could instead make an AI that itself uses quantum computation. I asked Roger Penrose about this at a university philosophy meetup over 20 year…

Well, quantum computation is weaker than a nondeterministic Turing machine, so not the same thing I'm saying. Penrose correctly identifies the mind cannot be a deterministic Turing machine, but his invocation of quantum mechanics does not solve the problem he points out. A DTM can simulate an NTM and hence anything inbetween, so the inbetween of quantum computation does not solve anything. The fundamental problem Pen…

Your theory doesn't seem falsifiable short of actually making an agi whose very definition is notoriously slippery.

You might as well just say the mind resides in the soul.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#106

Post by joe_the_user »

barrkel wrote: post #93
joe_the_user wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once someone is fluent in a language, the logical operations and judgements involved stop being overt and highly visible to the conscious mind. But that doesn't mean that one stops getting the benefits and results of logical operations. What you might see as logical operations "not mattering", I would see as logical operations integrated so deeply into reflexive operations that it's hard to see where one ends and the…

There's a parallel between something being logical and it "feeling right" without a necessary connection at the "implementation level" between the two, just like there may be a parallel between an artificial NN recognizer recognizing something unambiguously and not caught awkwardly with multiple weak or conflicting activations, and a logical system using rules to determine a contradiction, without ever needing to emb…

Well, neural nets and similar things laughably worse than AI systems when confronted with "real world" situation.

I wouldn't argue with the point that humans use rigorous logic and overt rules-based behavior much less than they imagine (your summary is very much a summary of the other-NLP model of mind, which I know).

I'd argue that while "refined" logic, systematic logic, might be rare, fairly crude logic, more or less indistinguishable from simply using language, is everywhere and it an incredibly powerful tool that human have. Again, being able to correct object recognition based on things people tell you is an incredibly powerful thing. You don't need a lot of full rationality for this but it gets you a lot. And that's just a small-ish example.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#107

Post by 995533 »

If AGI is possible, it already happened. If even AI experts put it a 100-1000 years out, where some human monkeys banging on digital typewriters could eventually create it, then, in the vastness of space, time, military contracts, alien intelligences, and random Boltzmann brains, it must have been reality multiple times already.

If AGI is impossible, it will never happen. We already know that perfectly intelligent AGI's are not physically possible: Per DeepMind's foundational theoretical framework, optimal compression is non-computable, and besides that, it is not possible for an inference machine to know all of its universe (unless it is bigger than the universe by at least 1 bit, AKA it is the universe).

Remains being more intelligent than all of humanity. To accomplish that, by Shannon's own estimates, there is currently not enough information available in datasets and the internet. Chinese efforts to artificially increase the intelligence of babies is still in its infancy too (the substrate of AGI is irrelevant for computationalism, unless it absolutely needs to run on the IBM 5100).

So until that time travels, we will have to make due with being smarter than/indistinguishable from a human on all economic tasks. We're already there for some subset of humanity, you may even be a part of that subset, if you believed this post was written by a human.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#108

Post by sanxiyn »

taneq wrote: post #102
mindgam3 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“if you formulate a [very specific type of problem involving perfect information games] in the right way”

Hey, at least it's a type of problem rather than a problem itself. I haven't studied enough myself yet to know the answer to this one, but what are the differences between AlphaZero and the OpenAI 5 DOTA team's approach? Would it be possible to apply AlphaZero to DOTA?

DOTA is partially observable, so I believe AlphaZero can't be applied, as-is.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#109

Post by 995533 »

hacker_9 wrote: post #8

Behind 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.

Your reasoning does not follow. To see why, take something humans already clearly created: Flight. Kerosene-type jet fuel propulsion has not been observed in nature. It is flight nonetheless.

Human flight is not as agile or energy-effective as a dragonfly, but it is faster and stronger. Just like artificial learning may not be as sample-effecient as the human brain. It is a learning intelligence nonetheless and we are already working with the core mechanisms of reasoning and deduction.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality

#110

Post by Retric »

joe_the_user wrote: post #106
barrkel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a parallel between something being logical and it "feeling right" without a necessary connection at the "implementation level" between the two, just like there may be a parallel between an artificial NN recognizer recognizing something unambiguously and not caught awkwardly with multiple weak or conflicting activations, and a logical system using rules to determine a contradiction, without ever needing to emb…

Well, neural nets and similar things laughably worse than AI systems when confronted with "real world" situation. I wouldn't argue with the point that humans use rigorous logic and overt rules-based behavior much less than they imagine (your summary is very much a summary of the other-NLP model of mind, which I know). I'd argue that while "refined" logic, systematic logic, might be rare, fairly crude logic, more or l…

Intelegence is not limited to what Humans are good at. People are really bad at several tasks where current AI tech excels, but those things tend to be excluded from the conversation.

AGI that is as smart as say a rat would easily qualify as AGI even without language skills.

Post reply on HN