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

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#471

Post by Alas1 »

Veedrac wrote: post #464
Alas1 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, interpreting "continual" the way you did would mean I should believe that we can't conclude our friends to be intelligent either (I don't believe that). Maybe I should've said "prolonged" rather than "continual". Let me elaborate on my previous point with an example. If you look at the recent works in machine translation, you can see that the commonly used evaluation metric of BLEU is being improved upon at least…

My comment was not on ‘continual’ but on ‘Turing test’. If you gave 100 chimps of the highest calibre 100 attempts each, not a single one would pass a single Turing test. Ask a feral child to translate even the most basic children's book, and their mistakes will be so systematic that Google Translate will look like professional discourse. ‘Humanlike mistakes’ and stability with respect to input in the sense you mean…

I see your point, but you're simply contesting the definition of intelligence that I assumed we were operating with, which is humanlike intelligence. Regardless of its extent, I think we would agree that intelligent behavior is consistent. My main point is that the current way we evaluate the artificial agents is not emphasizing their inconsistency.

Wikipedia defines Turing test as "a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human". If we want to consider chimps intelligent, then in that context the definition of the Turing test should be adjusted accordingly. My point still stands: if we want to determine whether a chimp exhibits intelligence comparable to a human, we do the original Turing test. If we want to determine whether a chimp exhibits chimplike intelligence, we test not for, say, natural language but for whatever we want our definition of intelligence to include. If we want to determine whether an artificial agent has chimplike intelligence, we do the second Turing test. Unless the agent can display as consistent an intelligence as chimps, we shouldn't conclude that it's intelligent.

Regarding your point on weak measures: If I can find an endless stream of cases of failure with respect to a measure that we care about improving, then whatever collation of weak measures we had should be null. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not against using weak measures to detect intelligence, but only as long as it's not trivial to generate failures. If a chimp displays an ability for abstract reasoning when I'm observing it in a cage but suddenly loses this ability once set free in a forest, it's not intelligent.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#472

Post by partisan »

gdb wrote: post #209
adamsmith wrote: post #162

Congrats on the fundraise Greg and team! Does this mean that OpenAI may not disclose progress, papers with details, and/or open source code as much as in the past? In other words, what proprietary advantage will Microsoft gain when licensing new tech from OpenAI? I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my o…

We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past. > I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense. That's exactly how we think about it. We're interested in licensing some technologies in order to fund our AGI efforts. But eve…

> We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past.

I don’t mean to parse your words, but will you continue to publish using the same exact criteria as before or will there be a new editorial filter?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#473

Post by ekianjo »

throwawaywego wrote: post #406
z3t4 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic bomb was based on science theory. A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself.

> The atomic bomb was based on science theory. Our study of (automated) intelligence is based on science too. > A computer ... will never be able to think by itself. Turing wrote an entire paper about this (Computing Machinery and Intelligence), where he rephrases your statement (because he finds it to be meaningless) and devises a test to answer it. He also directly attacks your phrasing of "but it will never": > I…

> Our study of (automated) intelligence is based on science too.

Can you elaborate which part of sciences you are talking about here?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#474

Post by ekianjo »

DuskStar wrote: post #408
z3t4 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic bomb was based on science theory. A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself.

> A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself. A computer being able to simulate a brain that thinks for itself is the logical extrapolation of current brain-simulation efforts. Many people think there are far less computationally intensive ways to make an AI, but "physics sim of a human brain" is a good thought experiment. Unless you think there's somethi…

> A computer being able to simulate a brain that thinks for itself is the logical extrapolation of current brain-simulation efforts

Except that our current neural networks have nothing to do with the actual neurons in our brain and how they work.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#475

Post by breck »

p1esk wrote: post #447
breck wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been following some of the more theoretical papers in the field, and we're barely even at the theory forming stage. I read those papers too. And I write code and train models day in and day out. I could get very specific on what needs to be done, but that's what we do at our job. If you're curious, I'd say join the field. I agree with you in that I don't think for a second anyone can make an accurate predictio…

I’ve been doing research in DL field for the last 6 years (just presented my last paper at IJCNN last week), and I can say with confidence we have no clue how to get to AGI. We don’t even know how DL works on the fundamental level. More importantly, we don’t know how the brain works. So I agree with pron that your “relatively soon” is just as likely to be 10 as 100 years from now.

I could explain it to you in an afternoon. But I’m not going to do it online, because then you have a thousand people call you “delusional”, because you simply are stating that exponential processes are going to continue. For some reason, many people who think themselves rational and scientific believe that things that have been going exponentially are suddenly going to go linear. To me, that is delusional.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#476

Post by breck »

j88439h84 wrote: post #277
breck wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have no idea what's required to achieve AI Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain...At this point we still need 10x+ improvements in a lot of areas, but it's pretty clear what we need to do. If you can process around 100 petabytes per second (1 Google Index of data per second), you could fully simulate a human being, including their brain. We're still a lit…

> doing deep learning, and do research on programming languages and deep learning for program synthesis. That sounds fascinating. Could you link to some relevant stuff about languages and deep learning for program synthesis? I'd love to read more about this.

Sure! Shoot me an email to remind me

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#477

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaywego wrote: post #406
z3t4 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic bomb was based on science theory. A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself.

> The atomic bomb was based on science theory. Our study of (automated) intelligence is based on science too. > A computer ... will never be able to think by itself. Turing wrote an entire paper about this (Computing Machinery and Intelligence), where he rephrases your statement (because he finds it to be meaningless) and devises a test to answer it. He also directly attacks your phrasing of "but it will never": > I…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#478

Post by DuskStar »

ekianjo wrote: post #469
DuskStar wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1939, Enrico Fermi expressed 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible. And, if you're working with U238, it basically is! But it turns out that it's possible to separate out U235 in sufficient quantities to use that instead. On the 2nd of December, 1942 he led an experiment at Chicago Pile 1 [1] that initiated the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And it…

> In 1939, Enrico Fermi expressed 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible. And, if you're working with U238, it basically is! But it turns out that it's possible to separate out U235 in sufficient quantities to use that instead. You are moving goalposts. You mentioned in the first place "fission weapons" and now you take a quote about "nuclear fission reactor" w…

A self-sustaining nuclear reaction is a prerequisite for a fission weapon. (that's what allows the exponential doubling of fission events to occur)

A nuclear reactor was also required for the production of Pu-239, which is what 2 of the first 3 bombs were made from.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#479

Post by p1esk »

breck wrote: post #475
p1esk wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been doing research in DL field for the last 6 years (just presented my last paper at IJCNN last week), and I can say with confidence we have no clue how to get to AGI. We don’t even know how DL works on the fundamental level. More importantly, we don’t know how the brain works. So I agree with pron that your “relatively soon” is just as likely to be 10 as 100 years from now.

I could explain it to you in an afternoon. But I’m not going to do it online, because then you have a thousand people call you “delusional”, because you simply are stating that exponential processes are going to continue. For some reason, many people who think themselves rational and scientific believe that things that have been going exponentially are suddenly going to go linear. To me, that is delusional.

Explain what?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#480

Post by Veedrac »

Alas1 wrote: post #471
Veedrac wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was not on ‘continual’ but on ‘Turing test’. If you gave 100 chimps of the highest calibre 100 attempts each, not a single one would pass a single Turing test. Ask a feral child to translate even the most basic children's book, and their mistakes will be so systematic that Google Translate will look like professional discourse. ‘Humanlike mistakes’ and stability with respect to input in the sense you mean…

I see your point, but you're simply contesting the definition of intelligence that I assumed we were operating with, which is humanlike intelligence. Regardless of its extent, I think we would agree that intelligent behavior is consistent. My main point is that the current way we evaluate the artificial agents is not emphasizing their inconsistency. Wikipedia defines Turing test as "a test of a machine's ability to e…

I'm not interested in categorizing for the sake of categorizing, I'm interested in how AI researchers and those otherwise involved can get a measure of where they're at and where they can expect to be.

If AI researchers were growing neurons in vats and those neurons were displaying abilities on par with chimpanzees I'd want those researchers to be able to say ‘hold up, we might be getting close to par-human intelligence, let's make sure we do this right.’ And I want them to be able to do that even though their brains in vats can't pass a Turing test or write bad poetry or play basic Atari games and the naysayers around them continue to mock them for worrying when their brains in vats can't even pass a Turing test or write bad poetry or play basic Atari games.

Like, I don't particularly care that AI can't solve or even approach solving the Turing test now, because I already know it isn't human-par intelligent, and more data pointing that out tells me nothing about where we are and what's out of reach. All we really know is that we've been doing the real empirical work with fast computers for 20ish years now and gone from no results to many incredible results, and in the next 30 years our models are going to get vastly more sophisticated and probably four orders of magnitude larger.

Where does this end up? I don't know, but dismissing our measures of progress and improved generality with ‘nowhere near as robust as [...] humans’ is certainly not the way figure it out.

> If I can find an endless stream of cases of failure with respect to a measure that we care about improving, then whatever collation of weak measures we had should be null. Wouldn't you agree?

No? Isn't this obviously false? People can't multiply thousand-digit numbers in their heads; why should that in any way invalidate their other measures of intelligence?

Post reply on HN