Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#111

Post by vijucat » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

> Let’s talk about what machine learning is...it analyzes training data to uncover correlations between different phenomena.

The author seems to have missed or excluded reinforcement learning and planning algorithms in this definition.

My criticism of AI criticism in general is that no one admits that at the root of it, we do not understand thinking (or "consciousness"). We are merely the "recipient" or enjoyer of the process, which is opaque. Just as AlphaGo, even if it just a facsimile of a Go player, could beat a human at Go, it is probable that an AI could produce a passable facsimile of thinking at one point. Its mechanisms would be as opaque as human thinking (, even to itself), but the results would be undeniable. AGI is a possibility.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#112

Post by Trasmatta » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

okareaman wrote: post #94

Trasmatta wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If our brains are receivers to a field of consciousness, why would it be impossible to replicate one of those receivers with a machine? You also seem to have just kicked the can down the road. "Consciousness arises from a field somehow, and the brain acts as a receiver somehow. The somehow is not explained."

I didn't say I knew how. I said I believe materialism is a dead end, by which I mean I doubt the consciousness arises out of atoms configured as neurons. How those neurons receive a conscious field seems a more productive line of inquiry, but for some reason people resist this idea. Not sure why.

My main point was that you seemed to be criticizing materialism for not yet having a solid answer for "how", which is the same issue any alternative theory has.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#113

Post by heavyset_go » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #43

> It’s not sorcery, it’s “magic” – in the sense of being a parlor trick, something that seems baffling until you learn the underlying method, whereupon it becomes banal. I think part of the problem is the belief that human or animal intelligence is somehow more mystical. People who think like this will see an ML implementation solve a problem better and/or faster than a human and counter "well, it's just using statis…

Obligatory "Your brain is not a computer"[1] reference.

[1] https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#114

Post by simonh » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #101

bhntr3 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see any path from continuous improvements to the (admittedly impressive) ‘machine learning’ field that leads to a general AI > I share the skepticism towards any progress towards 'general AI' - I don't think that we're remotely close or even on the right path in any way. This isn't how science works though. Quoting the wikipedia page for Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" ( https://en.w…

This seems akin to Asimov's "Elevator Effect": https://baixardoc.com/preview/isaac-asimov-66-essays-on-the-... starting p 221. I agree that one would think that Science Fiction writers would have enough of an imagination to be able to consider alternate futures (Cory CYA's by saying such a scenario would make a good SF story) - but there are already promising approaches to AGI: Minsky's "Society of Mind", Jeff Hawkin…

1960s Herbert Simmons predicts "Machines will be capable, within 20 years, of doing any work a man can do."

1993 - Vernor Vinge predicts super-intelligent AIs 'within 30 years'.

2011 ray Kurzweil predicts the singularity (enabled by super-intelligent AIs) will occur by 2045, 34 years after the prediction was made.

So until his revised timeline for 2029 the distance into the future before we achieve strong AI and hence the singularity was, according to it's most optimistic proponents, receding by more than 1 year per year.

I wonder what it was that lead him to revise his timeline so aggressively. I think all of those predictions were unfounded, until we have a solid concept for an architecture and a plan for implementing it an informed timeline isn't possible.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#115

Post by sorokod » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

staticman2 wrote: post #77

nkozyra wrote: post #43

> It’s not sorcery, it’s “magic” – in the sense of being a parlor trick, something that seems baffling until you learn the underlying method, whereupon it becomes banal. I think part of the problem is the belief that human or animal intelligence is somehow more mystical. People who think like this will see an ML implementation solve a problem better and/or faster than a human and counter "well, it's just using statis…

We are not "simple machines" we are the result of 3.7 billion years of evolution. We are the most complex known thing in the universe. We are far more complicated than anything we can hope to make in the forseeable future, if ever.

You and every living organism around you, was hammered out by the same evolutionary process.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#116

Post by cratermoon » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

jstx1 wrote: post #16

> I am an AI skeptic. I am baffled by anyone who isn’t. I don’t see any path from continuous improvements to the (admittedly impressive) ‘machine learning’ field that leads to a general AI - I share the skepticism towards any progress towards 'general AI' - I don't think that we're remotely close or even on the right path in any way. - That doesn't make me a skeptic towards the current state of machine learning thoug…

There's good reason to be skeptical of AI as it is. Here's a couple of reasons

Racial bias in facial recognition: "Error rates up to 34% higher on dark-skinned women than for lighter-skinned males. "Default camera settings are often not optimized to capture darker skin tones, resulting in lower-quality database images of Black Americans" https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discriminatio...

Chicago’s “Heat List” predicts arrests, doesn’t protect people or deter crime: https://mathbabe.org/2016/08/18/chicagos-heat-list-predicts-...

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#117

Post by swayvil » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #100

Reimersholme wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, human thinking relies on prior models/filters for understanding the world as well so that would invalidate us as having general intelligence too?

Human thinking includes building new models/filters for understanding the world, not just applying old ones. And that isn't used for learning, we do it all the time when solving any kind of challenging problem or even for simple problems like trying to recognize a face. Computer models might never compete with human performance unless they can learn how to solve a problem as it is solving it, because that is what hum…

I am on the same page.

To talk about the models some more...

There's this big mass of models. And it's got all kinds of sections. Special sections that we learn about in school. Special sections called "science". Sections that we invent ourselves. Sections that we inherit from our parents, religion, etc. It's partially biological. Partially cultural. A massive library of models, mostly inherited.

You move in relationship with the mass in different ways.

You can create new models. That's what basic science is. Extending the edge of the mass. Naming the nameless.

You can operate freely from the mass. Creating your own models or maybe operating model-less. Artists, mystics, weirdos.

You can operate completely within the mass. Never really contending with unmodelled reality. The map and territory become one. Like in a videogame. I think that's the most popular way.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#118

Post by simonh » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

bhntr3 wrote: post #74

jstx1 wrote: post #16

> I am an AI skeptic. I am baffled by anyone who isn’t. I don’t see any path from continuous improvements to the (admittedly impressive) ‘machine learning’ field that leads to a general AI - I share the skepticism towards any progress towards 'general AI' - I don't think that we're remotely close or even on the right path in any way. - That doesn't make me a skeptic towards the current state of machine learning thoug…

> I don’t see any path from continuous improvements to the (admittedly impressive) ‘machine learning’ field that leads to a general AI > I share the skepticism towards any progress towards 'general AI' - I don't think that we're remotely close or even on the right path in any way. This isn't how science works though. Quoting the wikipedia page for Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" ( https://en.w…

>So it's a bit absurd to be optimistic or skeptical.

We skeptics aren't skeptical that AI is possible, were skeptical of specific claims. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of the optimistic estimates, since they really are little more than guesses with little or no foundation in evidence.

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#119

Post by bhntr3 » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

dundarious wrote: post #84

bhntr3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you at all close to this space? I am. > The example Cory puts on policing My most upvoted comment on this website was discussing this exact scenario. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655487 Could you perhaps clarify the generalization you're making about me and people like me so I can understand it?

3gg was replying to version_five. You're bhntr3. There is no generalization being made about you or even people like you, in a post that is a specific response to an account that is not yours.

I believe they are disagreeing whether "engineers working in this space are out to lunch" and since I have been "an engineer working in this space" I was asking for more clarification about what it meant to be "out to lunch".

Re: Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020)

#120

Post by shreyshnaccount » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #58

coddle-hark wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the term “data driven algorithm“. It makes it clear to everyone involved that what we’re doing is just adjusting an algorithm based on the data we have. No-one in their right minds would confuse that with building a true “A.I.”.

To be frank: that very much does not make it clear to everyone involved. If you told the average Joe you had a “data driven algorithm” instead of “AI” you would likely get a blank stare in return.

confusion is better than wrongful understanding?