Moravec's paradox • Hacker News Board

Re: Moravec's paradox

#41

Post by martinced » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #23

Sounds like people posting or contributing to an article like this are aiming at understanding artificial general intelligence. So just search for that. Artificial General Intelligence or AGI.

It's a bit sad that instead of acknowledging that AI has nothing at all to do with intelligence, AI researchers instead decided to coin a new term ("strong AI").

So you now have two terms: "AI" and "strong AI" (AGI if you wish) that are totally unrelated.

Had people been honest "strong AI" would be "AI" and the "AI" we have now should be called "fake AI" or "pink-unicorn AI" ; )

Re: Moravec's paradox

#42

Post by minoru » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 7:05 PM UTC

Sorry for going a little bit off topic here, but certainly there are works of science fiction based on this paradox — after all, it’s more than thirty years old! Any suggestions?

Re: Moravec's paradox

#43

Post by cmccabe » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 12:11 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #30

cmccabe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come up with an AI that can play the game of Go well. Then we'll talk.

That's just a snide comment, not a useful one. The difficulty of symbolic/logic problems can be made unboundedly great by construction. Nobody ever denied that. The point is that something like crossing a room and picking up a pencil seemed easy, and to this day is still a significant achievement for robotics, still requiring fairly controlled circumstances. It can be difficult to understand this from our present-day…

Just because you discovered a few cool hacks that happened to work well in very specific problem domains doesn't mean you've "solved" symbolic thought. The way a chess program works is not the way humans play chess. It does a brute-force search, rather than learning patterns.

Go is a good example of a game that can't effectively be brute-forced. There are a lot of other examples out there; that was just the one I happened to pick.

The point is that something like crossing a room and picking up a pencil seemed easy, and to this day is still a significant achievement for robotics, still requiring fairly controlled circumstances.

Just because you failed to do one thing doesn't mean you succeeded in doing another.

Re: Moravec's paradox

#44

Post by kragen » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 1:04 AM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #38

I'd say programming is a high level skill that computers can't do. Counter example?

The hard (for humans) part of programming is already being done by your compiler, linker, version control system, IDE, interpreters, etc. All that's left for you is the parts that are hard for computers: deciding what the program should do, guessing which libraries are worth the risk that they might be buggy, discovering gaps between what you decided the program should do and what its users need, figuring out how to make it understandable to users, getting people to try it, and so on.