Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current ML technology probably has little or nothing to do with whatever technology will eventually be needed to produce true AGI.
And programmers are probably not the ones who will come up with AI ideas. I'd bet on mathematicians that prove those Fermat's or ABC theorems.
John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
461–470 of 930 posts
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#462This doesn't surprise me at all. He went on a week long cabin-in-the-middle-of-nowhere trip about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). (edit: I'm not claiming he's a field expert in a week guys, just that he can probably learn the basics pretty fast, especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics) As recent as his last Oculus Connect keynote, he exto…
> about a year ago to dive in to AI (that's all this guy needs to become pretty damn proficient). (edit: I'm not claiming he's a field expert in a week guys, just that he can probably learn the basics pretty fast, especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics) To be honest anyone who has a very good working knowledge of Linear Algebra can learn much of ML-math in a day. There really isn't anything mat…
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mathematically, AI is a pretty well modelled field. AGI is a philosophical problem.
you're possibly thinking of the problem of consciousness, which is a totally separate thing. AGI is just what it says on the tin - a general intelligence. That is, a problem solver that can operate at a human or greater level in a broad variety of domains. This ability is plausibly totally orthogonal to "having the lights on" - having subjective experience.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
A dog brain can't design an artificial dog brain, and a human brain probably can't design a human-level AGI. It will likely be machine-evolved on cheap, massively parallel hardware, with the key problem being speeding up evolutionary search.
A dog brain can't design an artificial dog brain, and a human brain probably can't design a human-level AGI. That's ridiculous. A dog can't draw a dog, therefore a human can't draw a human?
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#465Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread arguing whether or not John Carmack has the right skills to help AGI, or about the specifics of his knowledge. Do you all realize you're arguing about nothing? Good for him for doing something he seems excited about. Maybe we should all stop gossiping and go do something we're excited about too.
The human brain really can't handle the crippling adversity of a fellow human announcing an aspiration. Hopefully our AGI replacement can.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
A dog brain can't design an artificial dog brain, and a human brain probably can't design a human-level AGI. That's ridiculous. A dog can't draw a dog, therefore a human can't draw a human?
It is sorta interesting to wonder about how far we can bootstrap ourselves. We went from trees to moon landings and neural networks, maybe we and our tools can rise to the top of the Kardashev scale (barring any cataclysms.) If so, it implies there's a sort of intelligence-completeness, where species can accomplish any physically possible objective. Or maybe we will peter out before achieving practical fusion, quantu…
"Humans create humans" via what bio evolution found.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#467Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I wonder what kind of advances are needed for AGI. 1. Biological brains are non-differentiable spiking networks much more complicated than backpropagated ANNs. 2. Ion channels may or may not be affected by quantum effects. 3. The search space is huge (but organisms aren't optimal and natural selection is probably local search) 4. If it took ~3.8b years t…
This reminds me of a interesting armchair moral dilemma: Assume we have the tech to replicate/simulate a biological brain. Now say we want to study the effects of extreme pain/torture etc on the brain. Instead of studying living animals or humans we'd just simulate a brain, and simulate sending it pain signals and see what happens. But, if this is a 100% replicated brain, doesn't that mean its suffering is just as re…
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (edit: I'm not claiming he's a field expert in a week guys, just that he can probably learn the basics pretty fast, especially given ML tech shares many base maths with graphics) This may be his biggest impediment. ML has gotten very far with looking at problems as linear algebraic systems, where optimizing a loss function mathematically yields a good solution to a precisely defined (and well circumscribed) classif…
Humans are not AGI's. We're specialised in human survival, not general intelligence. We're pretty limited in intelligence in many ways, actually, and the environment doesn't support generality. Without a proper challenge an agent would not become super intelligent. The cost of developing such an intelligence would conflict with the need to minimise energy for survival.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you rule out other attributes in the voting, such as charisma, political environment, society wellness, etc?
The "voters" are not humans, but environments. A simple example of an environment would be a room with two buttons, one of which rewards you when you press it, and one of which punishes you when you press it. Independently of anything like charisma, society wellness, etc. If X figures this out quicker and pushes the "reward" button more often than Y, then we consider this simple environment to "vote" for X in the int…
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#470Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread arguing whether or not John Carmack has the right skills to help AGI, or about the specifics of his knowledge. Do you all realize you're arguing about nothing? Good for him for doing something he seems excited about. Maybe we should all stop gossiping and go do something we're excited about too.
What is actually being argued is the cult worship of a particular engineer. I am against cult worship, so find the fact that Carmack is entering this space simply not news worthy. Yet here it is. Do I wish him the best of luck and hope he cracks the problem? Of course, all the same I would wish that of an upstart PhD student. Yet, the announcements of a brilliant PhD student attending a university to work on AGI is s…