What problem is OpenAI going to solve?
Introducing OpenAI
241–250 of 392 posts
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I've said many times on HN over the years, there is currently no clear path to science fiction like "AI". To return your question, hopefully without being rude, is there any proof that AI capable of having a moral disposition will ever exist? Andrew Ng (I believe) compared worrying about evil AI to worrying about overpopulation on Mars. Which is to say, the problem is so far off that it's rather silly to be consid…
As the history of science & technology shows, by the time there is any proof of the concept of a technology lethal to the human race, it is already too late. I would suggest you read the history of the Manhattan project if you want to continue in your belief system regarding "impossible" deadly technology.
>I would suggest you read the history of the Manhattan project if you want to continue in your belief system regarding "impossible" deadly technology.
To quote Carl Sagan:
>They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#243How to prevent Future ISIS from getting Future AI, or do we just shift from us trying to out-think them to our AI trying to out-think their AI? If the answer to the latter is "resources" then we're back where we started. Whoever has the biggest AI wins. The picture seems to be of many AI's all keeping each other in check, but that outcome seems less likely to result in the AI-UN and more like a primordial soup of com…
>How to prevent Future ISIS from getting Future AI, or do we just shift from us trying to out-think them to our AI trying to out-think their AI?
Uh...mind control I guess. Maybe my AI will have a better idea.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are those researchers? I'll admit I don't follow the stuff written by the friendly AI folks very much; I only know of Bostrom/Yudkowsky, both of whom are very much philosophers. All of the hype around ML today is in deep learning (let's be honest, OpenAI would not exist if that wasn't the case), and AFAIk there is almost no overlap between people who are prolific in deep learning and prolific in FAI.
Here's an overview of the technical work MIRI has done: https://intelligence.org/research/ It's true that Bostrom and Yudkowsky, as individuals, aren't deep learning people. However, I know that MIRI and I think FHI/CSER do send people to top conferences like AAAI and NIPS.
From what I've seen, MIRI's work is primarily on rule-based systems. Is any of it relevant to neural networks?
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#245Man I dunno about some of this media hype surrounding the topic of AI. I understand how powerful ML/AI algorithms are for general pattern matching (with a big enough computer, gradient descent can learn a lot of things...), but this whole skynet/doomsday fear thing seems ridiculous. I guess the risk is embedding into systems that manage missiles or something. But you don't need sophisticated algorithms for that to be…
Powerful AI has already caused mayhem in the human world: http://www.wired.com/2008/09/six-year-old-st/
You can be malicious and destructive without traditional weapons... perhaps even more so with AI presiding over all our data. I mean we already have AI that answers our emails for us... won't be that long before its slipping things in that we don't notice.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a hypothetical, not expected to happen in conventional supercomputers with the current state of machine learning. Imagine a massively parallel optical computer with the same transistor density as the human brain, the size of an olympic swimming pool running at the speed of light, and networked with 1000s of other similar computers around the world. Foomp, superintelligence, you won't even be able to pinpoint the…
Sure, but you would get the baby situation I posited years before what you're envisioning. You're skipping a bunch of steps. My hypotheticals (if they ever do happen) would occur way before your hypotheticals. Progress does not go in "Foomp" steps.
Everything goes in foomp steps if you condense time enough. Condense the last 200,000 years of human evolution to a couple minutes, and it goes 'Foomp', and the super foompy part doesn't happen until the last 2/10ths of a second with industrial civilization wherein the development of global networks compounds our collective intelligence exponentially, yielding unforeseeable emergent properties.
So certainly you would get the baby situation first, but going from manageable baby to astral foetus could potentially happen rapidly and unexpectedly as the rate of progress accelerates to unfathomable speeds, which is what's happened already in going from tribal man to modern civilization, and if you extrapolate that very consistent and reliable trendline, it leads to progress happening in a foomp step perceived as a foomp in real time. Really, all life is just one big accelerating foomp.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#247Man I dunno about some of this media hype surrounding the topic of AI. I understand how powerful ML/AI algorithms are for general pattern matching (with a big enough computer, gradient descent can learn a lot of things...), but this whole skynet/doomsday fear thing seems ridiculous. I guess the risk is embedding into systems that manage missiles or something. But you don't need sophisticated algorithms for that to be…
Powerful AI has already caused mayhem in the human world: http://www.wired.com/2008/09/six-year-old-st/ You can be malicious and destructive without traditional weapons... perhaps even more so with AI presiding over all our data. I mean we already have AI that answers our emails for us... won't be that long before its slipping things in that we don't notice.
This example of a human error has nothing to do with AI.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#248> Musk: I think the best defense against the misuse of AI is to empower as many people as possible to have AI. If everyone has AI powers, then there’s not any one person or a small set of individuals who can have AI superpower. In a sense, we have no other defense. AI is just math and code, and I know of no way to distinguish good linear algebra from evil linear algebra. The barriers to putting that math and code tog…
Two people in a basement might make significant advances in AI research. So from the start, AI appears to be impossible to regulate. If an AGI is possible, then it is inevitable.
Not necessarily. AGI might be possible but it's not necessarily possible for two people in a basement. AGI might require some exotic computer architecture which hasn't been invented yet, for example. This would put it a lot closer to nuclear weapons in terms of barriers to existence.
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#249$1B in committed funding. Just, wow. Side note: I wonder if the Strong AI argument can benefit from something akin to Pascal's Wager, in that the upside of being right is ~infinite with only a finite downside in the opposing case.
Pascal's wager is a fallacy. What benefit could it bring to the discussion?
Re: Introducing OpenAI
#250This is awesome.
I was literally just wondering when there will be open sourced AI. I only saw a few repos on github so figured it would be at least 3-10 years. The fact that things like this seem to surface so quick, including recent AI announcements from Google, etc, are a very good signs for AI in the future.