Introducing OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#351

Post by p1esk » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 12:30 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #343

p1esk wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have no clue about the architecture of the human brain. Even if we did, it's not clear we need to replicate it. My point is - even if we had, say, a million times more flops, and a million times more memory than the largest supercomputer today, we would still have no clue what to do with it. The problem is lack of algorithms, lack of theory, not lack of hardware.

We still have no clue about the architecture of the human brain. Even if we did, it's not clear we need to replicate it. We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them. even if we had, say, a million times more flops, and a million times more memory The point is that we could have those things but we don't have a mil…

We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them.

You call this a "clue"? It's like saying that computer architecture is "Billions and billions of transistors with orders of magnitude more connections between them". Not gonna get very far with this knowledge.

...we don't have a million times lower memory latency and...

Ok, let's pretend we have an infinitely fast computer in every way, with infinite memory. No bottleneck of any kind. What are you going to do with it, if your goal is to build AGI? What algorithms are you going to run? What are you going to simulate, if we don't know how a brain works? Not only we don't have "the algorithm for general intelligence", we don't even know if such an algorithm exists. It's far more likely that a brain is a collection of various specialized algorithms, or maybe something even more exotic/complex. Again, we have no clue. Ask any neuroscientist if you don't believe me.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#352

Post by p1esk » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 12:55 AM UTC

metafunctor wrote: post #270

p1esk wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until that "soon" arrives, there's a far greater chance that people will wipe out humanity. We have more suicidal terrorists today than ever in history.

Suicidal terrorists are hardly a threat to the existence of humanity. It takes quite a bit more than explosive vests to destroy all of mankind.

All of it, sure. But most of it might be easier than you think. Just one bomb in the wrong place can trigger a chain of catastrophic events. Don't forget that we have nukes in places like North Korea and Pakistan, and Iran is building one as fast as they can.

Excuse me, but I'd rather worry about those threats, than about a robot uprising.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#353

Post by anonred » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

p1esk wrote: post #351

chongli wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have no clue about the architecture of the human brain. Even if we did, it's not clear we need to replicate it. We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them. even if we had, say, a million times more flops, and a million times more memory The point is that we could have those things but we don't have a mil…

We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them. You call this a "clue"? It's like saying that computer architecture is "Billions and billions of transistors with orders of magnitude more connections between them". Not gonna get very far with this knowledge. ...we don't have a million times lower memory latency and...…

> Ok, let's pretend we have an infinitely fast computer in every way, with infinite memory. No bottleneck of any kind.

Simulate the set of all possible states and find the ones which resemble AGI.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#354

Post by p1esk » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 2:08 AM UTC

anonred wrote: post #353

p1esk wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a clue about the architecture of the human brain. Billions and billions of neurons with orders of magnitude more connections between them. You call this a "clue"? It's like saying that computer architecture is "Billions and billions of transistors with orders of magnitude more connections between them". Not gonna get very far with this knowledge. ...we don't have a million times lower memory latency and...…

> Ok, let's pretend we have an infinitely fast computer in every way, with infinite memory. No bottleneck of any kind. Simulate the set of all possible states and find the ones which resemble AGI.

How are you going to test each state for AGI-ness?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#355

Post by w1ntermute » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 2:27 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #334

w1ntermute wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority is no doubt going to subsidizing rides in an attempt to achieve market dominance.

Drivers aren't profitable on their own?

Not when Uber's competitors are subsidizing drivers.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#356

Post by rebootthesystem » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #342

rebootthesystem wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't know what term to use. I am using "crazy" to refer to the fact that some abnormal thought process is behind someone picking up a gun, knife, sword, axe, brick or driving a car to kill even one person or to engage in mass killings, to drive a car through a crowd, blow-up a building or use a gun or guns to mow down people in a theater. Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bun…

> "Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bunch of rounds in the back of their car, put on a bullet-proof vest and go shoot-up the neighborhood community center, church, school or mall." You've missed the point of the article I shared with you. The point was normal people under extraordinary circumstances can be pushed to breaking point and take it out on others. Normal people do not alway…

No, I read the article and stand by my conviction that the people you are referring to are not normal. Lot's of folks experience extraordinary circumstances during their lives, few, very very few, resort to violence as a result.

Not everyone is "wired" to deal with life's challenges the same way. I had a friend who committed suicide after losing his business in 2009. Sad. On the other hand, I've been bankrupt --as in lost it all, not a dime to my name-- and suicidal thoughts never entered my mind. In fact, I hussled and worked hard for very little until I could start a small business.

That article has an agenda, follow the money trail and you might discover what it is.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#357

Post by rebootthesystem » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #344

rebootthesystem wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't know what term to use. I am using "crazy" to refer to the fact that some abnormal thought process is behind someone picking up a gun, knife, sword, axe, brick or driving a car to kill even one person or to engage in mass killings, to drive a car through a crowd, blow-up a building or use a gun or guns to mow down people in a theater. Normal people don't take a gun out of their safe, load it, throw a bun…

> "More guns in Paris would have saved lives". Both of which are undeniably factual statements. No, that's definitely not undeniably factual. And your continued repeated use of "crazies" is fucking repugnant.

Chill dude. Don't blow a gasket.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#358

Post by p1esk » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 5:07 AM UTC

astrofinch wrote: post #283

p1esk wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This example of a human error has nothing to do with AI.

It's a small demonstration of the dangers of putting computer programs that do exactly as they are programmed in charge of making important decisions. Let's say we program an AI and get one little detail wrong and things go to hell as a result. We can call that "human error" or "AI error" but either way it's a reason for caution. I am actually somewhat concerned by this OpenAI project, and here's why. Let's say there…

It seems like most people expect the emergence of the strong AI to be a sudden event, something similar to the creation of a nuclear bomb. However, it's far more likely that AI will undergo gradual development, becoming more and more capable, until it is similar in its cognitive and problem solving abilities to a human. It's likely that we won't even notice that exact point.

I'm not even sure governments are interested in developing AGI. They probably want good expert systems as advisers, and effective weapons for the military. None of those require true human level intelligence. Human rulers will want to stay in control. Building something that can take this control from them is not in their interests. There likely to be an arms race between world superpowers, but it will probably be limited to multiple narrow AI projects.

Of course, improving narrow AI can lead to AGI, but this won't be the goal, IMO. And it's not a certainty. You can probably build a computer that analyses current events, and predicts future ones really well, so the President can use its help to make decisions. It does not mean that this computer will become AGI. It does not mean it will become "self-aware". It does not need to have a personality to perform its intended function, so why would it develop one?

Finally, most people think that AGI, when it appears, will quickly become smarter than humans. This is not at all obvious, or even likely. We, humans, possess AGI, and we don't know how to make ourselves smarter. Even if we could change our brains instantaneously, we wouldn't know what to change! Such knowledge requires a lot of experiments, and those take time. So, sure, self-improvement is possible, but it won't be quick.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#359

Post by visarga » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 6:21 AM UTC

camillomiller wrote: post #294

Geee wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the biggest danger is letting AI to sort our news and search engine results, social media feeds etc. There was research on Facebook how they can affect people's moods by using different weights for posts. What happens when intelligent bots start writing news, blogs, comments, tweets? In essence, I mean the dangers of using AI for large scale propaganda through Internet services. The best tools of the mo…

Short-term, yes. What's the filter bubble already, if not the outcome of a super intelligent centralized AI silently and invisibly deciding what's best for us to see, molding our own artificial world dynamically based on our supposed preferences, excising away every possible serendipitous misalignment with our digital self as it is perceived by the machine?

I's easy to build uncensored search engines and news feeds to counter the bubbling effect. Much easier than building AI.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#360

Post by visarga » Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 6:55 AM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #271

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #196

Man 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…

Survey's of AI experts give a median prediction that we will have human level AI within 30 years. And a non-trivial probability of it happening in 10-20 years. They are almost unanimous in predicting it will happen within this century.

I think we'll reach human level faster. We already solved to a high degree the problem of understanding the world. We can do perception for images, text, sound and video. In some perception tasks AI already surpasses humans.

We are also mining general knowledge about the world from the web, images and books. This knowledge is represented as feature vectors containing the meaning of the input images and text, or the so called thought vectors. We can use these to perform translation, sentiment analysis, image captioning, answer general knowledge questions and many more things.

On top of these perception systems there needs to be an agent system that receives thought vectors as input and responds with actions. These actions could be: reasoning, dialogue, controlling robots and many other things. It's in this part that we are still lagging. A recent result has been to be able to play dozens of Atari games to a very high score without any human instruction. We need more of that - agents learning to behave in the world.

I'd like to see more advanced chat bots and robots. I don't know why today robots are still so clumsy. When we solve the problem of movement, we'll see robots that could do almost any kind of work, from taking care of babies and the elderly to cooking, cleaning, teaching, driving (already there). We only need to solve walking and grasping objects, perception is already there, but unfortunately there's much less research going on in that field. I don't see yet any robot capable of moving as well as a human, but I am certain we will see this new age of capable robots in our lifetime.

On the other hand, we can start building intelligence by observing how humans reason. We extract thought vectors from human generated text and then map the sequences of thoughts, learning how they fit together to form reasoning. This has already been tried but it is in the early phases. We are very close to computers that can think well enough to be worthy dialogue companions for us.