Earlier quoted context omitted.
from people like you :)
So ai is not a problem in your eyes?
no
Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
171–180 of 181 posts
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are non-doomsday possibilities for AGI. Imagine a super-intelligent AI that was built from the start to value humanity and our way of life, and from there it chooses to protect us and enable us all to do what we want more. (Of course, this could go in dystopian directions, but even those are better than extinction.) A super-intelligent AI that is built to value humans could decide to "uplift" humans' intelligen…
You don’t even begin to comprehend what I’m saying. You need to think about this more deeply. So what if it is possible to create a benevolent ai? Nobody said this isn’t possible or even likely. We can also invent a machine that scrubs all the moss off of stones. Just because it’s possible for it to exist doesn’t mean it’s going to proliferate in the free-market of the world and everything in it. The only thing that…
I disagree with points 1 and 2 (and therefore 3). If a friendly AI is built and matures first, then it can protect us from unfriendly AIs trying to mature and take power. (Others call this idea a "singleton".)
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geoff Hinton is the grandfather of deep learning. Virtually all the modern advancements in AI can be traced back to him and his lab. What is your track record in AI? It sounds like you have no technical knowledge of AI. For example do you understand the concept of cross entropy loss?
Yes, the grandfather of deep learning. This is exactly my point. All the modern advancements in ai have nothing to do with agi. And by the way I happen to know about both of the subjects of the article.
So you don't understand what cross entropy loss is and have no technical knowledge of AI.
But you also claim all the recent advancements in AI don't improve AGI in anyway at all.
And somehow recent advances in AI are so dangerous that AGI is impending and AI research should be stopped.
Personal question - How do you manage to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously?
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#174Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, AGI-level intelligence is possible, because human brains exist. So unless you pose that a function has to rely on its materialization (there is something untouchably magic about biological neural networks, and intelligence is not multiple realizable), it should be possible to functionally model intelligence. Nature shows the way. AGI will likely obsolete humanity. Either depricate it, or consume it (make us…
It's not at all clear that AGI is technically feasible. Human brains exist but we have only a shallow understanding of how they work. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that AGI is possible, there's no scientific basis to assume that will make humanity obsolete. For all we know there could be fundamental limits on cognition. A hypothetical AGI might be no smarter than humans, or might be unable to leverage it…
Something can be possible, while still technically not feasible.
I agree our knowledge currently is lacking, but see no reasons why this will never catch up.
There are fundamental limits on cognition. For one our universe is limited by the amount of computing energy available. Plenty of problems can be fully solved, to where it does not matter if you are increasingly more intelligent (beyond a certain point, two AGI's will always draw at chess). Another limit is practical: the AGI needs to communicate with humans (if we manage to keep control of it), so it may need to dumb down so we can understand it.
Even an AGI as smart as the smartest human will greatly outrun us: it can duplicate and focus on many things in parallel. Then the improved bandwith between AGI's will do the rest (humans are stuck with letters and formulas and coffee breaks).
Manually deployed atom bombs and malware can already wreck us. No difference with autonomous (cyber)weapons.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the grandfather of deep learning. This is exactly my point. All the modern advancements in ai have nothing to do with agi. And by the way I happen to know about both of the subjects of the article.
So you don't understand what cross entropy loss is and have no technical knowledge of AI. But you also claim all the recent advancements in AI don't improve AGI in anyway at all. And somehow recent advances in AI are so dangerous that AGI is impending and AI research should be stopped. Personal question - How do you manage to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously?
the answers to your questions are
1: I never said recent advancements are directly leading to AGI. Not in ML.
2: I don’t hold any contradictory ideas in my head
Your comment is aggressive and unpleasant which is an offense that should get you flagged. I constantly get flagged for making comments like yours because I happen to have an unpopular opinion. I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit. Do you think I derive pleasure from trying to make people like you see things clearly?
As I have said so many fucking times, a layman is just as qualified as a ML expert to talk about the impact of AI on the world. Just because someone is an expert in a field that is tangentially related to AGI doesn’t mean a god damn thing. This is not a discussion about modern ML. But just to make it super easy for you to understand, let me put it this way: even if someone here were an expert in every detail of the theory and practical aspects of implementing an AGI, that person still doesn’t know any more than a layman about the consequences of AI. The point that you so annoyingly cling to is like a car mechanic thinking he was the ultimate authority on how cars would impact the world. You don’t have to be a car mechanic to understand and reason about the concept of transportation. Ultimately, the most qualified person to talk about that is an economist or someone. Not you. You don’t have a deeper understanding of the concept of AGI than literally anyone.
It is to the benefit of humanity that you observe the deep, fundamental changes that AGI will cause in the basic economics of human life. Dismissing it as “too far off” or “alarmist nonsense” is irresponsible.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t even begin to comprehend what I’m saying. You need to think about this more deeply. So what if it is possible to create a benevolent ai? Nobody said this isn’t possible or even likely. We can also invent a machine that scrubs all the moss off of stones. Just because it’s possible for it to exist doesn’t mean it’s going to proliferate in the free-market of the world and everything in it. The only thing that…
I disagree with points 1 and 2 (and therefore 3). If a friendly AI is built and matures first, then it can protect us from unfriendly AIs trying to mature and take power. (Others call this idea a "singleton".)
That’s a really good point.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't understand what cross entropy loss is and have no technical knowledge of AI. But you also claim all the recent advancements in AI don't improve AGI in anyway at all. And somehow recent advances in AI are so dangerous that AGI is impending and AI research should be stopped. Personal question - How do you manage to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously?
the answers to your questions are 1: I never said recent advancements are directly leading to AGI. Not in ML. 2: I don’t hold any contradictory ideas in my head Your comment is aggressive and unpleasant which is an offense that should get you flagged. I constantly get flagged for making comments like yours because I happen to have an unpopular opinion. I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit. Do you t…
So, according to you, ML is only tangentially related to AGI. Therefore we should listen to you, not ML experts - because you are a layman.
Even if I accept your absurd logic quoted above - how do you explain your contradictory goal of stopping all ML research. All the top AI experts are conducting ML research, which according to you is only tangentially related to AGI.
Going further, no AI researcher has managed to build even something as smart as a rat.
I, therefore conclude that the human race is at a greater danger of being out competed by evolution and chance mutations of chimpanzees and dolphins. These are our real competitors and next position leaders in IQ. We should focus on banning and eliminating chimpanzees and dolphins instead of foolishly protecting them. Why waste time blocking ML research which is only tangentially related to AGI. Let's take the war to www.reddit.com/r/dolphins and www.reddit.com/r/chimpanzees .
No point wasting time on hacker news.
> I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit.
Thanks for looking out for my benefit. I will reciprocate by fighting the chimpanzees for YOUR benefit.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
the answers to your questions are 1: I never said recent advancements are directly leading to AGI. Not in ML. 2: I don’t hold any contradictory ideas in my head Your comment is aggressive and unpleasant which is an offense that should get you flagged. I constantly get flagged for making comments like yours because I happen to have an unpopular opinion. I can’t believe I put up with all this for YOUR benefit. Do you t…
So, according to you, ML is only tangentially related to AGI. Therefore we should listen to you, not ML experts - because you are a layman. Even if I accept your absurd logic quoted above - how do you explain your contradictory goal of stopping all ML research. All the top AI experts are conducting ML research, which according to you is only tangentially related to AGI. Going further, no AI researcher has managed to…
Everything in this comment is wrong. Forgive me for not addressing all of it.
The point about the layman is that the actual substance of my argument should be considered rather than my credentials. You think that your knowledge of ML (credentials) gives you the authority to win a debate without actually debating.
I have never called for a ban on the specific research that is currently ongoing in ML. I have called for a ban on all AI research — not because it’s easy or makes a lot of sense but because it seems to be the only solution. I am receptive to new solutions, the absence of which is quite conspicuous in your comments. You are stuck on credentials and nit-picking.
“So according to you, ML is tangential so therefore listen to you”
I literally spelled this out for you in my comment. Are you blind? The fact that ML is not a direct path to AGI is just an asside. Perhaps I should have focused exclusively on your main error so as to not confuse you. Like I said, the impact of AI on the world is an economics question in essence. You don’t need to know anything about how an AGI might work to reason about the economic, strategic, and existential changes that AI as a concept will bring about. It is absolutely true that no amount of knowledge about ML or even AGI will help in any way with that line of inquiry.
“We haven’t made robot rats yet”
This just a permutation of people saying AGI is far off. You don’t appear to be in the camp that thinks AGI is impossible. Therefore this comment is irrelevant because it will come at some point and my argument is primarily about what that will look like, not when it will happen.
It should, by now, be thoroughly clear to anyone who stumbles upon this thread in the future that I am correct. If you want to continue, you can contact me at brian.pat.mahoney - gmail.com
Re: Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis: AGI is nowhere close to being a reality
#180Progress-skeptics are always wrong - except for artificial inteligence.