Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

facebook.com

211–220 of 930 posts

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks Rodents can't play Go or a lot of other humanly-meaningful tasks. We don't need to build an artificial cell. A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together, this is as far from efficient design as can be. The same way we don't build two-legged airplanes, we don't need anything that's close to the wet spiky…

The problem with the analogy is that the car, by far, is not a general transportation device. Practically, most cars are solving a very constrained transportation problem: moving on roads that humans made. We don't have anything remotely close to a wetware-enabled transportation device, something that can move on flat land, climb mountains, swim in bodies of water, crawl in caves, hide in trees. Within the constraine…

> constrained problem

human AI also evolved by solving constrained problems, one at a time. Life existed before the visual system , but once this was solved it moved on to do other things. In AI we have a number of sensory systems seemingly solved: Speech recognition, visual object recognition, and we are closing to certain output (motor) systems: NLP text synthesis systems seem a lot like the central pattern generators that control human gait, except for language. What seems to be missing is the "higher-level ", more abstract kernels that create intent, which are also difficult to train because we don't have a lot of meaningful datasets. Or maybe , we have too big datasets (the entirety of wikipedia) but we don't know how to encode it in a meaningful way for training. It's not clear however that these "integrating systems" are going to be fundamentally different to solve than other subsystems. It certainly doesn't seem to be so in the brain, since neocortex (which hosts both sensory and motor and higher level systems) is rather homogeneous. In any case, it seems we 're solving problems one after another without copying nature's designs, so it's not automatically true that we need to copy nature in order to keep solving more.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#214

This doesn't surprise me at all. He went on a week long cabin-in-the-middle-of-nowhere trip about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). (edit: I'm not claiming he's a field expert in a week guys, just that he can probably learn the basics pretty fast, especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics) As recent as his last Oculus Connect keynote, he exto…

But there's 100s of world-class researchers working on this problem already.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're on the wrong site if you're wanting to criticize software development as a career and suggest it does more harm than good

Yes, join the echo chamber or get out.

So which are you going to do?

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#216
post #30

I don't understand how he could contribute to the field of AGI research from home, by himself, and maybe with his son. It's the kind of problem that requires incredible amounts of data, hardware, and theory to make any progress. Wouldn't it make more sense for him to join a cutting-edge team, like DeepMind or OpenAI?

I think many people expect that a lot of the missing "special sauce" for AGI (if anyone can figure it out at all) is going to be something for which massive GPU power isn't a key factor.

Which will be the cognitive part. The machine learning is more like perception. But perception needs to be tied into an understanding of the world where inferences can be made and one can adjust quickly to a changing environment, while learning new domains or even creating new combinations. This also includes the social-emotional world of humans and language (and not just translation), of course.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#217
Yann LeCun's [0] comment on the post:

Welcome to the club, John.

A word of warning though: There is no such thing as AGI. Reaching human-level AI is a good goal. But human intelligence is very, very specialized.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yann_LeCun?fbclid=IwAR2e9mzCqS...

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#218
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know who just might be full of total bs is Ben Goertzel.

From what I've actually seen that is completely inaccurate and unfair. The only thing that he did to "deserve that" that I know of is to start seriously pursuing and talking about AGI before it was cool again. For example, OpenCog is an implementation of the classic cognitive architecture and its about as traditional and far from "total bs" as you can get in AGI. I have never heard anything to back up the insults aga…

[deleted]

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#219

I don't understand how he could contribute to the field of AGI research from home, by himself, and maybe with his son. It's the kind of problem that requires incredible amounts of data, hardware, and theory to make any progress. Wouldn't it make more sense for him to join a cutting-edge team, like DeepMind or OpenAI?

the recent result on 15% optimal learning error rate for binary classification, could have been derived with pencil on paper by anyone...

Sure, anyone can also do manual backpropagation of a very small modern neural network with pencil and paper, and yet it took decades to be there.

Everything is easy in hindsight.

And that's without mentioning that the specific result you are talking about is an infinitesimal progress when compared to "AGI".

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#220

Arguably he got started on this years ago. The story goes that Quake 3's AI was so sophisticated, that when left alone for 4 years on a bot vs bot server, the units learned pacifism as a self-preservation strategy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/07/02/quake-iii-a...

"learned pacifism as a self-preservation strategy" this is an interpretation, not what the bot intended to do, in other words, you're reading into it
Post reply on HN