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

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#41

Post by bufferoverflow »

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…

That's an unreasonable metric for AGI.

You're basically requiring AGI to be smarter/better than the smartest/best humans in every single field.

What you're describing is ASI.

If we have AGI that is on the level of an average human (which is pretty dumb), it's already very useful. That gives you robotic paradise where robots do ALL mundane tasks.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#42

Post by throwup238 »

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…

Another approach: the adult human brain has 100 (+- 20) billion or 10^11 neurons. Each neuron has 10^3 synapses and each synapse has 10^2 ion channels, amounts to 10^16 total channels. Assuming 10 parameters is enough to represent each channel (unlikely), that's about 10^17 (100 quadrillion) total parameters. Compare that to GPT4 which is rumored to be about 1.7*10^12 parameters on 8x 80GB A100s.

log(10^17/10^12)/log(2) = 16.61 so assuming 1.5 years per doubling, that'll be another 24.9 years - December, 2048 - before 8x X100s can simulate the human brain.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#43

Post by parl_match »

minroot wrote: post #40
shpongled wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, but the simple approach here was "full simulation".

And "brain in a jar" is different from "AGI"

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#44

Post by consumer451 »

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.

> 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.

Brain > Cell > Molecules(DNA and otherwise) > Atoms > Sub-atomic particles...

Potentially dumb question, but how deeply do we need to understand the underlying components to simulate a flatworm brain?

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#45

Post by jetrink »

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?

To borrow a phrase from Microsoft's history, "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." AI proves to be incredibly useful and we welcome it like we welcomed the internet. It becomes deeply embedded in our lives and eventually in our bodies. One day, a generation is born that never experiences a thought that is not augmented by AI. Sometime later a generation is born that is more AI than human. Sometime later, there are no humans.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#46

Post by breck »

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…

> I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100...Fundamentally I believe AGI will never happen without a body.

I think this is very plausible--that AI won't really be AGI until it has a way to physically grow free from the umbilical chord that is the chip fab supply chain.

So it might take Brainoids/Brain-on-chip technology to get a lot more advanced before that happens. However, if there are some breakthroughs in that tech, so that a digital AI could interact with in vitro tissue, utilize it, and grow it, it seems like the takeoff could be really fast.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#47

Post by throwup238 »

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.

The vast majority of the chemical processes in a single cell are concerned with maintaining homeostasis for that cell - just keeping it alive, well fed with ATP, and repairing the cell walls. We don't need to simulate them.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

minroot wrote: post #40
shpongled wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The human brain is the only thing we can conclusively say does run a general intelligence, so, its the level of complexity at which we can say confidently that its just a software/architecture problem.

There may be (almost certainly is) a more optimized way a general intelligence could be implemented, but we can't confidentally say what that requires.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#49

Post by WhitneyLand »

throwup238 wrote: post #42
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…

Another approach: the adult human brain has 100 (+- 20) billion or 10^11 neurons. Each neuron has 10^3 synapses and each synapse has 10^2 ion channels, amounts to 10^16 total channels. Assuming 10 parameters is enough to represent each channel (unlikely), that's about 10^17 (100 quadrillion) total parameters. Compare that to GPT4 which is rumored to be about 1.7*10^12 parameters on 8x 80GB A100s. log(10^17/10^12)/log…

And then how long until it runs on 20 watts of power? ;)

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#50

Post by glial »

throwup238 wrote: post #47
shpongled wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The vast majority of the chemical processes in a single cell are concerned with maintaining homeostasis for that cell - just keeping it alive, well fed with ATP, and repairing the cell walls. We don't need to simulate them.

> We don't need to simulate them.

You might be right, but this is the kind of hubris that is often embarrassing in hindsight. Like when Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator.

Post reply on HN