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

John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

dallasinnovates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 506 posts

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#311

Post by nullc »

e12e wrote: post #192
unsupp0rted wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t this be literal slavery? AGI = a person Instantiating people for work and ending their existence afterward seems like the virtual hell that Iain M Banks and Harlan Ellison wrote about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Sc...

Would turning one off be murder? Or does that only apply to deletion?

If people could be turned off and back on without harming them (beyond the downtime) doing so without consent would be a very different crime than murder.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#312

Post by bitshiftfaced »

jasmer wrote: post #115

"So I asked Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist, for a reading list. He gave me a list of like 40 research papers and said, ‘If you really learn all of these, you’ll know 90% of what matters today.’ And I did. I plowed through all those things and it all started sorting out in my head." Wow, that's going to be one of the more glib things I've read in a while. This is a bit of a Tom Cruise moment. I mean, I get i…

You say "glib", but I hear someone who sounds inspired. You combine Carmack plus "inspired", throw $20 million dollars at it and stick it in a room for 10 years, yeah I'd say he characterized it accurately by giving himself a "non-zero chance."

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#313

Post by peterfirefly »

osigurdson wrote: post #210
bayarearefugee wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird bit is that a lot of software engineers seem to have the idea that their work is one of the the last that will be automated. Looking at the current track and extending it out assuming no unforeseen roadblocks, typical software engineering looks to be one of the most threatened. Plumbers are much safer for longer all things considered. The obvious rebuttal to the idea that AI will eat software engineering is…

What I don't understand is how accounting has not been completely automated at this point. AI isn't even strictly needed, just arithmetic. If we can't completely automate accounting, then there is no hope for any other field.

Because the hard part is to make sense of a box full of unsorted scraps of paper, some of them with barely legible handwriting on them. Much of accountancy is the process of turning such boxes into nice rows of numbers. Once you have the numbers, the arithmetic is trivial.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#314

Post by m3kw9 »

seanhunter wrote: post #301
marviel wrote: post #267

> Now, the smart money still says it’s done by a team of researchers, and it’s cobbled together over all that. But my reasoning on this is: If you take your entire DNA, it’s less than a gigabyte of information. So even your entire human body is not all that much in the instructions, and the brain is this tiny slice of it —like 40 megabytes, and it’s not tightly coded. So, we have our existence proof of humanity: What…

A really good example of a smart person reasoning from completely made up assumptions to a punchy-sounding but almost-certainly wildly wrong conclusion. Just because our DNA can be efficiently encoded doesn't mean that our brain is a tiny proportion of that encoding. Your DNA doesn't change much from when you're born to when you die (random degredation aside) and yet your cognative abilities change beyond all recogni…

The brains structure is derived from dna but it contains learning capabilities that comes after the initial creation. Pretty much like how 5 lines of code can get you image recognition, of course it uses lots of libs, but I can still do that myself with 5 lines. The training is the hard part

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#315

Post by throwaway4aday »

moffkalast wrote: post #276
freediver wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do something so extraordinary that the entire world will remember you.

The prerequisites of course being in the right place at the right time, with the right people and a little luck on your side as well. So many people are remembered just because there were first at something by like a week, and the dozen others who also thought of it elsewhere but were a bit late or didn't publicize as well are forgotten forever.

id wasn't first in a lot of things. They were essentially porting existing graphics technology to the PC. They succeeded because other programmers turned their noses up at the "underpowered" PC in favour of systems with "better" hardware. Carmack certainly did a lot of work and devised some ingenious ways of getting the most out of PCs but he was adapting things more than pioneering them.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#316

Post by m3kw9 »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #305
marviel wrote: post #267

> Now, the smart money still says it’s done by a team of researchers, and it’s cobbled together over all that. But my reasoning on this is: If you take your entire DNA, it’s less than a gigabyte of information. So even your entire human body is not all that much in the instructions, and the brain is this tiny slice of it —like 40 megabytes, and it’s not tightly coded. So, we have our existence proof of humanity: What…

That's only the code describing the molecular hardware which is mostly just a description of a neuron. We don't as yet know how the neurons decide to specialize and organize themselves into a brain but one guess is that they are exploiting the physical principals that govern atomic and molecular interactions so the "code" for this might not even be present in the DNA itself it would be the physics of "a group of mole…

Yeah some sort of physical optimization that depends on forces definitely come into play in organizing the brain structure but at the end we can mimic that in code

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#317

Post by serverholic »

marviel wrote: post #267

> Now, the smart money still says it’s done by a team of researchers, and it’s cobbled together over all that. But my reasoning on this is: If you take your entire DNA, it’s less than a gigabyte of information. So even your entire human body is not all that much in the instructions, and the brain is this tiny slice of it —like 40 megabytes, and it’s not tightly coded. So, we have our existence proof of humanity: What…

You can’t just say that a human comes from a gigabyte of information. That info is fed into a massively complex physical system, which he is ignoring.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#318

Post by TremendousJudge »

mogacom wrote: post #244

Carmack is clearly a brilliant guy, but it feels like he's fallen into the trap of overfitting on his previous successes and believing they generalise into other domains. No doubt his experience and innovations in computer graphics gives him a good insight into problems in vision, etc. but I don't see anything particularly original or orthogonal in what he's saying with regards to "general AI".

I kind of agree, but when you're trying to research truly new stuff, a priori you don't know which are the promising avenues. Newton spent most of his life studying teology and alchemy, which now we know would never take him anywhere compared to physics, optics, or even running the Royal Mint, but at the time there was no way for him to know this.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#319

Post by throwaway4aday »

labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

Ideally, everyone can afford to rent a Frank or Amy to do work for them.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#320

Post by nullc »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #194
ddevault wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice how the goal for artificial general AI (which is literally defined as a sentient artificial being) is to commoditize it and enslave it to capitalism.

It's funny that all of these weird fantasies people have about AI are about replacing the rank and file workers. Why isn't anyone fantasizing about building an AI that out-performs the best stock traders, or captains an industry better than famous CEOs. I think a lot of it is just people projecting weird power fantasies on others.

Manna is mostly about machine intelligence replacing management-- it's easier to automate and doesn't require as much vision/dynamics/etc. breakthroughs, though we've made massive progress on those missing parts in the time since it was written.

https://marshallbrain.com/manna

Post reply on HN