31–40 of 111 posts
About AlphaZero particularly, a few things must be kept in mind. First, AlphaZero still makes use of a Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm to search for good moves. MCTS is a powerful algorithm with a very limited scope: zero-sum, perfect information games. So for instance, it would be very difficult to see how to use MCTS-based AlphaZero in, e.g., training self-driving cars. Second, the AlphaZero architecture is preci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that information is crucial to achieve a 'win' for many goals. Given today's amount of information on the Internet as well as electronic money and access to most officials, barring some sort of inviolable built-in moral core, an AGI would be able to use any methods, overt and covert, direct and cunning, technical and social, to achieve its information goals. [1] Since an AGI can copy itself and be available a…
[AGI Developer] A controller/overseer can easily limit/block this sufficiently and securely. Were talking about hardware/software. There are systems/standardized approaches to solving this problem. The 'Control/Safety' problem for AI are lauded as theoretical and new. However, they are not. They are solved by industry standard approaches day in and out. Any seasoned/experienced engineer in this field could solve this…
Why should we assume that an AGI which can accumulate experience over time, gain more knowledge, and make connections with others, including human actors, will not ever be able to break the locks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that information is crucial to achieve a 'win' for many goals. Given today's amount of information on the Internet as well as electronic money and access to most officials, barring some sort of inviolable built-in moral core, an AGI would be able to use any methods, overt and covert, direct and cunning, technical and social, to achieve its information goals. [1] Since an AGI can copy itself and be available a…
[AGI Developer] A controller/overseer can easily limit/block this sufficiently and securely. Were talking about hardware/software. There are systems/standardized approaches to solving this problem. The 'Control/Safety' problem for AI are lauded as theoretical and new. However, they are not. They are solved by industry standard approaches day in and out. Any seasoned/experienced engineer in this field could solve this…
The only way to know that with any certainty is to actually have solved this problem in the context of an actual general AI, which of course we don't have yet.
AGI, for those wondering like myself what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
About AlphaZero particularly, a few things must be kept in mind. First, AlphaZero still makes use of a Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm to search for good moves. MCTS is a powerful algorithm with a very limited scope: zero-sum, perfect information games. So for instance, it would be very difficult to see how to use MCTS-based AlphaZero in, e.g., training self-driving cars. Second, the AlphaZero architecture is preci…
How does AlphaZero handle the Knight in chess?
Edit: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf
The information you want is on page 13, last paragraph. The previous paragraph describes the representation of the boardd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reasoning in the arguments is left a little loose on purpose simply because it is so difficult make strong arguments about something we know so little about.
It is difficult to make arguments in something that has no grounding. I'd expect someone who claims to have a valid argument for an [intelligence explosion] event to have formal education and industry experience designing computational systems such that they could clearly define how exactly it could occur. I have yet to see such an individual w/ such a viewpoint. Instead, I see a ridiculous argument being forwarded b…
They will hit economical and physical limits eventually, sure. But what will stop them at the beginning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reasoning in the arguments is left a little loose on purpose simply because it is so difficult make strong arguments about something we know so little about.
It is difficult to make arguments in something that has no grounding. I'd expect someone who claims to have a valid argument for an [intelligence explosion] event to have formal education and industry experience designing computational systems such that they could clearly define how exactly it could occur. I have yet to see such an individual w/ such a viewpoint. Instead, I see a ridiculous argument being forwarded b…
Of course, so far no one has any idea how pragmatically it could play out. Maybe it'll start with something as banal as VisualStudio + Cortana providing an advantage to AI design, that helps designing a better Cortana, that helps designing a better Cortana, that ...
Yes, of course, it's unlikely in the coming next 1-2 decade, because the best "AGI" we know (the human mind), is a hodgepodge of specialized faculties jury rigged together by ancient code lossy compressed and stored in a multi-stage bootloading wetware that takes years to learn reading the magnificent ~26 letters of a latin alphabet (but similarly takes the same time to learn walking, talking, hearing, rudimentary thinking, a minimal concept of self, a theory of mind and so on, and for some reason it has a shitty API, it must go through all of the aforementioned to even begin learning chess).
So far AI is focusing on computer vision, some NLP, (strategy or easy to evaluate) games. At least the current progress/results are clustered around those areas. We don't know when will be the next big leap, maybe in knowledge representation, or goal formation, maybe in other kinds of very useful, more general intelligence related areas.
About AlphaZero particularly, a few things must be kept in mind. First, AlphaZero still makes use of a Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm to search for good moves. MCTS is a powerful algorithm with a very limited scope: zero-sum, perfect information games. So for instance, it would be very difficult to see how to use MCTS-based AlphaZero in, e.g., training self-driving cars. Second, the AlphaZero architecture is preci…
I agree it’s probably quite constrained in the range of possible applications. Everyone was expecting Deep Blue to revolutionise AI applications too. I know the tech is different, but the fact it seems optimised for a highly constrained problem domain isn’t, and in fact arguably the problem domain addressed by deep blue seemed for a long time to be much more general.
How adaptable is AlphaZero to arbitrarily multidimensional grids though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is difficult to make arguments in something that has no grounding. I'd expect someone who claims to have a valid argument for an [intelligence explosion] event to have formal education and industry experience designing computational systems such that they could clearly define how exactly it could occur. I have yet to see such an individual w/ such a viewpoint. Instead, I see a ridiculous argument being forwarded b…
What is your argument? Why a group of engineers who can think two times faster than average cannot perform the task of designing three times faster engineer quicker than a group of average engineers? They will hit economical and physical limits eventually, sure. But what will stop them at the beginning?
So it's kind of a (fallacious) argument against "black box"-ing the whole intelligence explosion problem. If you can't define it, you can't analyze it sort of thing.
We know that for most problems, a group of people tends to be better at problem solving than an individual [1]. Even if AI technology only reaches human-level and does not exceed it, continually increasing efficiency would make AI smarter than any small groups of humans and immense bandwidth relative to human communications would make it more effective than any large human organizations. [1] https://aiimpacts.org/coo…
This also assumes intelligence is the limiting factor for solving many problems. I suspect information and computation is probably the larger factor for most major issues. The smartest player possible would still lose poker to someone that can read their hand.