171–180 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that manmade solar cells are pretty bad at repairing or replicating themselves.
Or growing out of literally nothing but dirt and water.
Also if someone loses weight, most of the carbon that made up their fat leaves the body as breath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, in really broad terms, in order to get AGI actually we would need to do better than nature. If our metric is (intelligence)/(joule), nature seems pretty bad at a first glance: it took many trillions of lifetimes to achieve "general intelligence" * But then again, on the big stuff like this, have we ever really beat nature? That asterisk is there because, sure, turning the earth's biosphere into computers wou…
Nature has a massive incentive to make good use of energy from light through photosynthesis. Billions of plants compete, and whoever can get most out of the sun will win out. Yet manmade solar cells are more efficient by nearly all measures.
1) Trees are natural and trees create leaves with a solar efficiency of x
2) Humans are natural and we create solar panels with efficiency x + y
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nature has a massive incentive to make good use of energy from light through photosynthesis. Billions of plants compete, and whoever can get most out of the sun will win out. Yet manmade solar cells are more efficient by nearly all measures.
Except that manmade solar cells are pretty bad at repairing or replicating themselves.
General AI requires a feedback mechanism from the real world. Unless you have an accurate model of it in a computer, you can’t just test whether a joke will be funny without waiting for humans to laugh. You can’t check whether a tailored diet or workout regimen or gene therapy will have good results without humans trying them.
So you’ve reduced your AI problem to a harder problem: modeling the world and all of its complexity in a computer, and somehow being able to run simulations faster than the stuff that happens in the actual real world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bet a sum of real money that Some Bozo is correct. Bozo has the hindsight of history and philosophy going for him, while Deep Mind has a huge financial temptation to sell snake oil.
while Deep Mind has a huge financial temptation to sell snake oil I don't know, isn't the DeepMind founder that guy in the Go documentary? I read about him after watching the doc and he seemed to be pretty cautious about taking in investment, and he didn't seem the type to try to cash out.
Eventually Google will give them the option to deliver financial success or be shut down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offence, but I think you are extremely wrong. Creating an AGI is the endgame for everything. Who cares about ads when you have an AI that can learn to do anything and improve upon itself continuously?
Really? I created two GI's and it wasn't very hard and was actually quite fun. Training them is a bit of a pain though. I'm willing to bet that based on total calories consumed they are amazingly efficient compared to their hypothetical AGI counterparts.
- live forever
- grow their own mental capabilities exponentially over that unlimited lifespan
- turn themselves into universe-eating von Neumann probes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, in really broad terms, in order to get AGI actually we would need to do better than nature. If our metric is (intelligence)/(joule), nature seems pretty bad at a first glance: it took many trillions of lifetimes to achieve "general intelligence" * But then again, on the big stuff like this, have we ever really beat nature? That asterisk is there because, sure, turning the earth's biosphere into computers wou…
Nature has a massive incentive to make good use of energy from light through photosynthesis. Billions of plants compete, and whoever can get most out of the sun will win out. Yet manmade solar cells are more efficient by nearly all measures.
Just because plants compete on some limited level doesn’t mean that a particular plant organism “winning” means becoming the most efficient converter of sunlight.
Is everyone’s memory like those people who can remember every detail? Why not? If you’re immediately planning to make up a just-so explanation on the spot that has the requisite but unproven claim about increasing the genetic fitness function, that is the problem with evolutionary explanations. It’s not science if you just make stuff up and give it the same amount of credibility as something that has been tested and proven. You can take any trait and spin stories about why it is the way it is, and then expect somehow that some metric has to be maximized because of your unproven theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, in really broad terms, in order to get AGI actually we would need to do better than nature. If our metric is (intelligence)/(joule), nature seems pretty bad at a first glance: it took many trillions of lifetimes to achieve "general intelligence" * But then again, on the big stuff like this, have we ever really beat nature? That asterisk is there because, sure, turning the earth's biosphere into computers wou…
Nature has a massive incentive to make good use of energy from light through photosynthesis. Billions of plants compete, and whoever can get most out of the sun will win out. Yet manmade solar cells are more efficient by nearly all measures.
Nature is full of examples that are 'good enough' while balancing other competing constraints. Evolution doesn't create organisms optimized for efficiency - it creates organisms optimized for reproduction. The two are not always the same.
Saying RL is sufficient to (eventually) achieve AGI is a bit misleading. One might similarly state that biological evolution is sufficient to (eventually) achieve biological general intelligence. Both statements are probably true, but the parenthetical (eventually) is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.
I think the title of the paper makes more sense if you consider that ten years ago, someone could have written a paper in a similar spirit with a different take on "what is enough". Back then, it would probably have been titled: "Backpropagation of errors is enough". The last ten years have shown that backpropagation -- while a crucial component -- is not enough. Personally, I would not be shocked to find out in the…
The layman and the AI expert have both written off the possibility of creating AGI for the entirety of this latest AI spring. In the past decade I have basically never encountered anyone who thought that AGI was going to happen in our lifetimes or even anyone who believed that it would be a problem if it did. One time I discussed AGI with a good friend. And I gently pressured him to play through the scenario of the a…
If it were running as a sandboxed application inside some kind of runtime environment with only access to print output text and read input text, as you might expect a GPT-n program to run, certainly you could unplug it.
Humanity could be considered God's AGI, but if God doesn't give us the APIs to interact with heaven, it follows that we can't kill God. Of course, humans are much more greedy, so I'm sure our creations will have full access to any APIs needed to run our factories, advertise products on the internet, and maybe direct our military weapons too :) Oops!
> Despite the mind-boggling level of mental gymnastics performed in the wake of GTP-3, enough to constitute a three ring circus, the fact of the matter is that GTP-3 and soon to be 4 is not supposed to exist according to every single AI expert
Could you elaborate? What mental gymnastics, and it is not supposed to exist according to who exactly?