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

Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

cis.temple.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#21

Post by boredumb »

eimrine wrote: post #16
weego wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT, is that you?

I hate post-2022 internet discussions because one is really common nowadays - talk about statements you don't like that they were written by bot. This accusation takes ridiculously low number of symbols, so it is impossible even to react to this kind of assumption because answering to troll using significantly more symbols is the definition of troll feeding. By the way, the message you are referring to consist of mor…

Don't worry, it's been happening to people since 2017 as a way to disregard real people disagreeing with their horrible political fads - now it's just 2022 and everything is a bot. Let's not forget on the the internet no one knows you're a dog.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#22

Post by dwighttk »

eimrine wrote: post #16
weego wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT, is that you?

I hate post-2022 internet discussions because one is really common nowadays - talk about statements you don't like that they were written by bot. This accusation takes ridiculously low number of symbols, so it is impossible even to react to this kind of assumption because answering to troll using significantly more symbols is the definition of troll feeding. By the way, the message you are referring to consist of mor…

even your reply sounds like it coulda been generated

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#23

Post by ilaksh »

mz00 wrote: post #3

How do we know which institutions to trust in safely deploying AGI? From my POV some kind of autonomous and generalized intelligence is inevitable and imminent - but who can be trusted to deliver something that works for the majority? Or is that a pipe dream?

The real danger in the next few years will be the extreme operating speed of the types of fairly general purpose AIs that we already have such as GPT. This will increase to be dozens of times faster than what humans are capable of. That creates a very strong type of leverage for operators and an incentive to remove slow humans from the loop. Overall transfer of control to these types of systems may lead to a precarious lack of real agency and capability to adapt fast enough for humans. As well as danger from things like smart computer viruses taking over the systems.

I think the only way to be relatively safe from those issues is to limit the hardware performance.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#24

Post by eimrine »

dwighttk wrote: post #22
eimrine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate post-2022 internet discussions because one is really common nowadays - talk about statements you don't like that they were written by bot. This accusation takes ridiculously low number of symbols, so it is impossible even to react to this kind of assumption because answering to troll using significantly more symbols is the definition of troll feeding. By the way, the message you are referring to consist of mor…

even your reply sounds like it coulda been generated

Any possible params ending up with something like that?

What layer of PG's "pyramid of disagree" is your answer? What about weego's one?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#25

Post by SeanLuke »

> Partly due to the recognized difficulty of the problem, in the 1970s-1980s mainstream AI gradually moved away from general-purpose intelligent systems, and turned to domain-specific problems and special-purpose solutions...

I think there's little evidence for this. What happened in the 1980s was the introduction of and overselling of expert systems. These systems applied AI techniques to specific problems: but those techniques themselves were still pretty foundational. This is like saying that because electricity was used for custom things, we started inventing custom electricity.

> Consequently, the field currently called "AI" consists of many loosely related subfields without a common foundation or framework, and suffers from an identity crisis:

Nonsense. AI of course consists of loosely related subfields with no common foundation. But even back in the 1960s, when a fair chunk of (Soft) AI had something approaching a foundation (search), the identity of the field was not defined by this but rather by a common goal: to create algorithms which, generally speaking, can perform tasks that we as humans believe we alone are capable of doing because we possess Big Brains. This identity-by-common-goal hasn't changed.

So this web page has a fair bit of apologetics and mild shade applied to soft AI. What it doesn't do is provide any real criticism of the AGI field. And there's a lot to offer. AGI has a reasonable number of serious researchers. But it is also replete with snake oil, armchair philosophers, and fanboy hobbyists. Indeed the very name (AGI) is a rebranding. The original, long accepted term was Hard AI, but it accumulated so much contempt that the word itself was changed by its practitioners. This isn't uncommon for ultrasoft areas of AI: ALife has long had this issue (minus the snake oil). But at least they're honest about it.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#26

Post by asah »

eimrine wrote: post #24
dwighttk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even your reply sounds like it coulda been generated

Any possible params ending up with something like that? What layer of PG's "pyramid of disagree" is your answer? What about weego's one?

LOL, what GPT4 actually says:

It's clear that we've reached a point in online discussions where the lines between human and machine are blurred, especially when conversing on complex topics like AI and blockchain. My comment wasn't intended to reduce your argument's credibility but rather to highlight this fascinating phenomenon.

That said, returning to the original topic, I believe that trust in government is multifaceted and not easily boiled down to "good guys" versus "bad guys." Furthermore, while blockchain-based systems are designed to resist central control, it's a mistake to think that governments are incapable of influencing or regulating these technologies.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can strike a balance between technological advancement and responsible governance.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#27

Post by mrob »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #15
weego wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a concern for any current living generations, so any answers are moot because the landscape of the entire friction between corporations, governments and the people will likely have shifted dramatically to where our opinions today have no relevance to their issues.

> It's not a concern for any current living generations How much would you be willing to bet? I understand the skepticism, but to assign 0% probability to it happening in our lifetimes seems excessively low.

Betting against business as normal is a lose-lose scenario.

AGI never exceeds humans: You lose the bet.

AGI exceeds humans, but recursive self-improvement is impossible: Authoritarian dystopia. Your winnings belong to whoever controls the AGI.

AGI exceeds humans, and recursive self-improvement is possible: Extinction of all biological life. There are no winnings.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#28

Post by eimrine »

asah wrote: post #26
eimrine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any possible params ending up with something like that? What layer of PG's "pyramid of disagree" is your answer? What about weego's one?

LOL, what GPT4 actually says: It's clear that we've reached a point in online discussions where the lines between human and machine are blurred, especially when conversing on complex topics like AI and blockchain. My comment wasn't intended to reduce your argument's credibility but rather to highlight this fascinating phenomenon. That said, returning to the original topic, I believe that trust in government is multif…

I am in a funny situation because of arguing to a really bot.

But wait a minute. The lines between human and machine might be blurred when you are talking to some Customer Support specialist, but it is never blurred when discussing any sciences (Math, Physics, Programming and of course Blockchain).

What about good guys vs bad guys issue from comment, your GPT4 has correctly discovered sarcasm which has happened before human actor did it which tells to me that the lines between human and machine is somewhat blurred indeed.

> I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can strike a balance between technological advancement and responsible governance.

I'd love the same, that's why I threw the "good guys" point. Also I really believe that some kind of Blockchain-powered AI actor will be a game changer with totally unpredictably outcomes because it will be a biggest revolution in power balance since nuclear bombs.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#30

Post by SanderNL »

ilaksh wrote: post #23
mz00 wrote: post #3

How do we know which institutions to trust in safely deploying AGI? From my POV some kind of autonomous and generalized intelligence is inevitable and imminent - but who can be trusted to deliver something that works for the majority? Or is that a pipe dream?

The real danger in the next few years will be the extreme operating speed of the types of fairly general purpose AIs that we already have such as GPT. This will increase to be dozens of times faster than what humans are capable of. That creates a very strong type of leverage for operators and an incentive to remove slow humans from the loop. Overall transfer of control to these types of systems may lead to a precario…

I don't want be too human-centric, but to be completely honest we haven't seen the slightest proof that human intelligence is not something special. I know lots of animals are pretty clever, none approach us in any practical sense.

While it looks like an evolutionairy fluke that can be approached or even exceeded by other species - either on this or another planet - in the blink of an eye, I think that's actually more speculative than we would care to admit.

We don't know. Maybe human intelligence is a very close approximation of cognition's equivalent of physic's light speed. Increasing it may turn out to be prohibitively expensive. There's lots of precedence for animals having acquired features close at or actually at the physical maximum of whatever it is they are optimizing for.

To be clear, I'm not convinced of anything either way but I'd think it would as fantastic as it would be slightly depressing to find out human intelligence actually is some kind of global maximum with some exceptions like machines using energy harvested from black hole systems or something.

Post reply on HN