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

AI

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 317 posts

Re: AI

#141

Post by mindcrime »

gus_massa wrote: post #105
mindcrime wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted because HN does not have a separate 'save' feature like Reddit, and upvoting is a quick and easy way to tag it as "read this eventually". So I reflexively upvote anything that looks even vaguely interesting. In this case, I did read the article, and would probably have upvoted it anyway. Why? Because it stands to serve as the seed of an interesting discussion. Personally, I don't give a fuck if the article…

I saved 59 stories in the last 7 days. I don't expect to be able to find any of them in the future (in more than 1 month). The only realistic way to find old stories is to use the search feature, if you can remember a few keywords.

No doubt, once they get past a certain age, they become basically useless bookmarks (probably like most bookmarks). But I find that my pattern is usually to vaguely recall something from sometime in the past 3-6 weeks or so, and that often times if I go to my "saved stories" and just start scrolling back through them, I find the one I'm looking for.

Re: AI

#142

Post by aragot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #116
reeses wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, with infinite processing and storage, time is irrelevant. :) Flip the switch and you'll have real intelligence (as opposed to our lazy Approximate Intelligence) just in time for the immediate heat death of the universe.

Ask it quickly: can entropy be reversed?

Good idea, it might have time to say it: Nope ;)

Re: AI

#143

Post by cpeterso »

aragot wrote: post #130
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the title on HN is "AI", which makes it a small click target [1], prone to accidental upvotes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law

I just did that. iPad here, click target is below 44px.

This happens to me all the time on my phone. HN should make bigger voting arrows (or at least on mobile devices).

Re: AI

#144

Post by tim333 »

aragot wrote: post #133
chongli wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need a better machine first. The current model of one or a handful of CPU cores with very tiny caches talking to memory over a narrow, high latency bus doesn't seem very efficient for building and querying massive (multi-petabyte), highly associative (thousands of associations) data structures.

There are 100,000,000 neurons in the brain. It's not that many. A Core 2 Duo has 169m [1]. A neuron is connected to about 10.000 others. And how many computers do we have in the world? It even sounds like we scientifics are sluggish at inventing AI ;) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

Of course a Core 2 Duo has 169m transistors rather than neurons. Interestingly you can do a rough calculation of how much processing power would be needed to do the equivalent of a human brain and it's quite a lot. Hans Moravec calculates it a about 100 million million instructions a second ( http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm ) based on the processing power required to fuctionally equal the human retina which is reasonably understood. A core 2 duo does something more like 2.7 thousand million instructions per second and so you'd need about 35,000 of them for brain equivalence. So you're talking in 2014 terms of a a top end supercomputer rather than a macbook.

Re: AI

#145

Post by sama »

dcre wrote: post #128
elwell wrote: post #10

Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?

I've felt this way about every Sam Altman piece that's been posted in the past week (and possibly every one I've ever read). And I feel guilty because PG speaks so highly of him. And then I feel guilty for feeling guilty.

don't feel guilty. I'm blogging to practice writing. It surprises me at least as much as you when articles like this do well on HN and makes me feel embarrassed I didn't make them better (there are some posts I work really hard on and hope people like, but this was not one of them)

Re: AI

#146

Post by tzm »

sama wrote: post #145
dcre wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've felt this way about every Sam Altman piece that's been posted in the past week (and possibly every one I've ever read). And I feel guilty because PG speaks so highly of him. And then I feel guilty for feeling guilty.

don't feel guilty. I'm blogging to practice writing. It surprises me at least as much as you when articles like this do well on HN and makes me feel embarrassed I didn't make them better (there are some posts I work really hard on and hope people like, but this was not one of them)

I like your candor.

Re: AI

#147

Post by arjunnarayan »

timClicks wrote: post #90
edanm wrote: post #86

If anyone is interested in AI, I highly recommend joining Less Wrong, a community started by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. He started the community to convince people to focus on the "friendly AI problem". [1] I actually recommend that everyone read LW, but especially if you're interested in AI. [1] In a nutshell, the friendly AI problem is: assume we create an AI. It may rapidly become more intelligent than us, i…

Any suggestions for getting started in the LW community? Its barrier to entry means I can't seem to vote on anything, etc. It's quite intimidating really.

read hpmor.com. It may not be the optimal way, but it is the funnest way.

Re: AI

#148

Post by auntienomen »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #110
marcosdumay wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We probably can't. Unless it's an extremely fast algorithm, we don't have the processing power to make it run faster than our brain. We'll can in a couple of decades, probably. But not now.

Brain seems to be slow (I read it was measured to run at 200Hz tops), but it's extremely parallelized and caches the livjng shit out of everything.

It also appears to have quite a remarkable instruction set.

Re: AI

#149

Post by tim333 »

idProQuo wrote: post #123
jcfrei wrote: post #118

> I am quite confident that we’ll be able to make computer programs that perform specific complex tasks very well. But how do we make a computer program that decides what it wants to do? Are we so sure that "we" really are in charge of what we want to do? I believe a lot of our desires and ambitions are hardcoded into our brains and we just project them onto present goals, like getting a promotion or learning how to…

This is why the desire for Strong AI boggles my mind. In order for a computer to operate at a "human" level, it would need to make decisions based on things like ambition and fear and greed. It will also have to constantly make mistakes, just like we do. If it didn't have character flaws, it wouldn't be operating at a "human" level. But if it does have these character flaws, how useful would it really be compared to…

Presumably the AI in the Google cars must have something like a fear of crashing or hitting a pedestrian even if its just something like score that the algorithms calculate.

Re: AI

#150

Post by youlweb »

I'm a strong A.I hobbyist, and I just put up a website for my basic abstract algorithm: genudi. The website's implementation of the algo revolves around having a conversation with a computer. Currently in limited release, you can request a Pioneer account from there: http://www.genudi.com
Post reply on HN