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

Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#21

Post by EzraVinh »

cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

I agree with your assessment on those two avenues. One thing that throws people off is that the AI/Machine Learning community is constantly selling their models as "human like" when the models are really only inspired by the human brain by extremely loose analogies.

There is another approach, what I would call the Airplane approach, since it is to the brain what airplanes are to birds. That is, to base machine intelligence on a new kind of mathematical logic that hasn't been invented yet.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#22

Post by tluyben2 »

solipsism wrote: post #15
Gobitron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?

Religious people, even if not strict, have this reaction always. I don't see this clashing with religion, but 'they' do. Then again, i'm not religious although I was raised with the bible at home and in school and know it by heart.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#23

Post by tluyben2 »

krapp wrote: post #12
pygy_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to emulate brains to create intelligence anymore than you have to imitate birds to build airplanes.

Isn't that an open question? Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.

Well, if you look at them from very far and keep your ears closed they kind of resemble birds. And they do resemble birds more than other stuff in the air. I think that analogy probably will hold up; the eventual strong AI will resemble a brain a complexity and will have a lot of things in common, but it will not be the same.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#24

Post by tluyben2 »

dimatura wrote: post #10
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

Is it feasible? Yes, absolutely. Are we anywhere near to 'human-level' AI? No, not by a long shot. How long will it take? Will we ever make it? Very hard to know.

Well... That definition keeps changing. For passed definitions we passed human-level a few times. And for some tasks we did or will pass it soon. So what is your definition of 'human-level' intelligence? Don't copy wikipedia; make one up in strict language (don't say consciousness please). For what a lot people make/made up we passed.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#25

Post by sebastialonso »

Gobitron wrote: post #5
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

Why not? I keep seeing these discussions pointing out the futility of thinking about the brain as a computer, but still don't see powerful arguments to back that postulate up, other than the 'brain too hard, computer too easy, so brain no computer'.

Brain as a computer, in my opinion should be the default state for this discussions. Why? Consider the old and tired brain-made-of-matter argument. There's no reason to think there's something magical or supernatural inside the brain, so treat it as an organized collection of atoms doing cool stuff. The default state cannot be magic, it has to be something that can be disproved or ruled out.

Some parts of it seem to work, as fas as we know, in a (suspiciously) algorithmic way, or in other words, a highly abstract step-by-step chain of actions can be identify for a given part of the brain.

Why not start with the crazy assumption that the whole brain acts as a computer (the theoretical concept), and then identify which parts of it fail the analogy? The key part here is the word 'fail': it should not mean 'too complex for any computer we have built' nor 'we don't know any algorithm that does that', it should mean that there are parts that inherently cannot be modelled, under any circumstances, like the definition of algorithm. If some part is discovered not to hold the analogy, you should just then question if the analogy is question is apt or not.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#26

Post by sebastialonso »

solipsism wrote: post #15
Gobitron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?

I think is the idea of another 'demotion'. Even educated people instinctively oppose the idea of a philosophical demotion.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#27

Post by Gobitron »

sebastialonso wrote: post #25
Gobitron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

Why not? I keep seeing these discussions pointing out the futility of thinking about the brain as a computer, but still don't see powerful arguments to back that postulate up, other than the 'brain too hard, computer too easy, so brain no computer'. Brain as a computer, in my opinion should be the default state for this discussions. Why? Consider the old and tired brain-made-of-matter argument. There's no reason to t…

It's totally fair for one to start with that assumption, and stick with it until proven otherwise. But it's just as fair for me to be skeptical of the analogy. Before the concept of computers existed, people (very smart people) thought the complex organisms worked just like mechanical machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy), and I'm sure there were - and are - many similarities and likenesses to be drawn. However that analogy wasn't correct as we now know. So we're on to the current thinking. Fair enough.

I also think it's a jump to go from "if brain isn't a computer - then magical". There's a lot of room in between. And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#28

Post by Gobitron »

tluyben2 wrote: post #22
solipsism wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?

Religious people, even if not strict, have this reaction always. I don't see this clashing with religion, but 'they' do. Then again, i'm not religious although I was raised with the bible at home and in school and know it by heart.

I guess that if you're religious, then yeah, almost by definition, you would be skeptical of assertions like these. Although to the parent comments point, I'm not defensive at all about looking into AI. I find it fascinating and exciting and though I'm not trained in it, I read as much as I can about it and don't want to stop any research or questions into it at all.

But hubris - yes it is hubris. Because there is no scientific basis for the assertion that we will cross that chasm into 'true' AI, and thus it's based just as much on faith as any religious belief. And it's hubris because they claim a scientific basis where there is none.

When there is a scientific basis or proof that we've reached (or will reach) this 'singularity', you won't see me complaining. I'm not anti-science. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.

On a semi-related note, doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that Ray Kurzweil's calculations for when the singularity will occur happen to be just about the time his natural life will end (statistically speaking)? These projections are all driven by ego and faith, very little by science...

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#29

Post by sebastialonso »

Gobitron wrote: post #27
sebastialonso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? I keep seeing these discussions pointing out the futility of thinking about the brain as a computer, but still don't see powerful arguments to back that postulate up, other than the 'brain too hard, computer too easy, so brain no computer'. Brain as a computer, in my opinion should be the default state for this discussions. Why? Consider the old and tired brain-made-of-matter argument. There's no reason to t…

It's totally fair for one to start with that assumption, and stick with it until proven otherwise. But it's just as fair for me to be skeptical of the analogy. Before the concept of computers existed, people (very smart people) thought the complex organisms worked just like mechanical machines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy ), and I'm sure there were - and are - many similarities and likenesses…

I really liked the point of mechanical philosophy you made. This is science in action, when one paradigm can no longer be a valid model, a revised one with none of its weaknesses but with more virtues arises, in this case, the computing machine philosophy.

>And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...

I agree, it's a huge jump! And that's precisely my point. The brain as a computer paradigm has nothing to do with the idea that an i5 core can't recognize cats, is the theoretical aspect of a computing machine that is used when trying to argue in favour of the BaaC paradigm.

Conciousness is precisely what doesn't fit in the BaaC paradigm. So the research should start from there. I'm curious if the definition conciousness will have to be changed in the near future. Exciting times!

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#30

Post by tluyben2 »

Gobitron wrote: post #28
tluyben2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious people, even if not strict, have this reaction always. I don't see this clashing with religion, but 'they' do. Then again, i'm not religious although I was raised with the bible at home and in school and know it by heart.

I guess that if you're religious, then yeah, almost by definition, you would be skeptical of assertions like these. Although to the parent comments point, I'm not defensive at all about looking into AI. I find it fascinating and exciting and though I'm not trained in it, I read as much as I can about it and don't want to stop any research or questions into it at all. But hubris - yes it is hubris. Because there is no…

I said exactly that about Kurzweil his predictions here on HN a while ago; others have the same issue; fear of death moves their predictions near the end of their own life. That's not weird though; if you don't get to see it yourself, what's the point? Sure it's nice for the future generations but that's not really how most people think.

About religion and science; it is about definition where there difference is; IF you accept some definition X as being strong AI then when we reach that we have a scientific reality. The chasm and 'true' AI and what these are in scientific terms are vague, however in science we accept definitions of how nature works and if those definitions are things you hold true there is no reason why it won't be reached as there is not 'special' in the fabric of our brains which we couldn't copy given advanced enough ehm, take your pick; biology, nanotech, electronics, 3d printing etc. If you however cannot agree on definitions and have that (to me alien) quality of accepting mystery above all, then sure it's all believe or not. Not a good conversation maker as we are done after 2s, but he.

Post reply on HN