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

Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#31

Post by endisneigh »

dogprez wrote: post #29
endisneigh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? By that same logic humans definitionally already have done everything they can or will do with technology. I believe AGI must be definitionally superior. Anything else and you could argue it’s existed for a while, e.g. computers have been superior at adding numbers basically their entire existence. Even with reasoning, computers have been better for a while. Language models have allowed for that rea…

The comparison of the accomplishments of one entity versus the entirety of humanity is needlessly high. Imagine if we could duplicate everything humans could do but it required specialized AIs, (airplane pilot AI, software engineer AI, chemist AI, etc). That world would be radically different than the one we know and it doesn't reach your bar. So, in that sense it's a misplaced benchmark.

I imagine AGI to be implemented something similar to MoE, so it seems fair to me.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#32

Post by teddyh »

jelsisi wrote: post #11

As a 20 something this makes me so excited to be alive.

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#33

Post by fasterik »

It's interesting data on what AI researchers think, but why should we think that AI researchers are going to have the most accurate predictions about the future of AI? The skills that make someone a good AI researcher aren't necessarily the same skills that make someone a good forecaster. Also, the people most likely to have biased views on the subject are people working within the field.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#34

Post by endisneigh »

albertzeyer wrote: post #22
endisneigh wrote: post #12

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…

You say that a single AGI model should be as powerful as doing everything what the whole humanity has done in the last 100k years or so? Or a group of millions of such AGI instances in a similar time frame?

No, not a single model. A single system. Based off of nothing I expect AGI to basically be implemented like MoE.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#35

Post by shpongled »

jjcm wrote: post #19

A really simple approach we took while I was working on a research team at Microsoft for predicting when AGI would land was simply estimating at what point can we run a full simulation of all of the chemical processes and synapses inside a human brain. The approach was tremendously simple and totally naive, but it was still interesting. At the time a supercomputer could simulate the full brain of a flatworm. We then…

To be pedantic, I would argue that we aren't even close to being able to simulate the full brain of a flatworm on a supercomputer at anything deeper than a simple representation of neurons.

We can't even simulate all of the chemical processes inside a single cell. We don't even know all of the chemical processes. We don't know the function of most proteins.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#36

Post by [deleted] »

jncraton wrote: post #24
tayo42 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something to read about simulating a worm brain. Neurons aren't just simply on and off? They grow and adapt physically along with their chemical signals. Curious how a computer accounts for all of that.

You might be interested in OpenWorm: https://openworm.org/ This paper might be helpful for understanding the nervous system in particular: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.037...

[deleted]

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#37

Post by vladms »

jelsisi wrote: post #11

As a 20 something this makes me so excited to be alive.

That's really a characteristic of being 20 (with the "this" being different things of different people). Good for everybody that manages to keep the feeling later as well, but it is definitely easier at 20...

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#38

Post by Vecr »

sveme wrote: post #16

Does anyone know potential causal chains that bring about the extinction of mankind through AI? Obviously aware of terminator, but what other chains would be possible?

I'm going to take that to mean "P(every last human dead) > 0.5" because I can't model situations like that very well, but if for some reason (see Thucydides Trap for one theory, instrumental convergence for another) the AI system thinks the existence of humans is a problem for its risk management, it would probably want to kill them. "All processes that are stable we shall predict. All processes that are unstable we shall control." Since humans are an unstable process, and the easiest form of human to control is a corpse, it would be rational for an AI system that wants to improve its prediction of the future to kill all humans. It could plausibly do so with a series of bioengeneered pathogens, possibly starting with viruses to destroy civilization then moving on to bacteria dropped into water sources to clean up the survivors (as they don't have treated drinking water anymore due to civilization collapsing). Don't even try with an off switch, if no human is alive to trigger it, it can't be triggered, and dead man's switches can be subverted. If it thinks you hid the off switch it might try to kill everyone even if the switch does not exist. In that situation you can't farm, because farms can be seen from space (and an ASI is a better analyst than any spy agency could be), you can't hunt because all the animals are covered inside and out with special anti-human bacteria, natural water sources are also fully infected.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#39

Post by alanbernstein »

endisneigh wrote: post #12

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…

> Fundamentally I believe AGI will never happen without a body

I'm inclined to believe this as well, but rather than "it won't happen", I take it to mean that AI and robotics just need to unify. That's already starting to happen.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#40

Post by minroot »

shpongled wrote: post #35
jjcm wrote: post #19

A really simple approach we took while I was working on a research team at Microsoft for predicting when AGI would land was simply estimating at what point can we run a full simulation of all of the chemical processes and synapses inside a human brain. The approach was tremendously simple and totally naive, but it was still interesting. At the time a supercomputer could simulate the full brain of a flatworm. We then…

To be pedantic, I would argue that we aren't even close to being able to simulate the full brain of a flatworm on a supercomputer at anything deeper than a simple representation of neurons. We can't even simulate all of the chemical processes inside a single cell. We don't even know all of the chemical processes. We don't know the function of most proteins.

Does AGI must needs to be brain-like?
Post reply on HN