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

John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

dallasinnovates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 506 posts

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#481

Post by throwaway4aday »

TuringTest wrote: post #476
throwaway4aday wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even now ChatGPT is pretty close to being able to tutor someone in a subject. You could build a product around it that would work off of a lesson plan, ask the student questions and determine if they answered correctly or not and be able to identify what part of their knowledge was missing and then create a lesson based around explaining that. It would need to have some capabilities that ChatGPT doesn't have by itsel…

If you think mentoring can be replaced by answering a few questions and pointing out where they went wrong or what popular articles to read next, I'm afraid you don't know anything about what constitutes good mentoring. It's all about transmitting a point of view from life lessons learned from human experience, and an AI chatbot has nothing of that. What you describe is the "learning equivalent to personalized ads" t…

Fine, looks like you won't budge on your opinion. You don't have to use these things if you don't want to but I look forward to having an even better service than things like Khan Academy or Udemy which I already get great value from.

I wasn't saying the AI tutor would recommend articles by the way. If you were creating a learning platform you would have some custom produced videos and text lessons that you could use. There are also plenty of free or open source materials that could be used like open courses or public domain books. I don't know why you're stuck on "personalized ads".

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#482

Post by throwaway4aday »

sn9 wrote: post #430
throwaway4aday wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, are those chemical gradients encoded in DNA?

They're encoded in the laws of physics. Kinda like asking if gravity and fluid dynamics are encoded in the blueprint for an aircraft. The design relies on them, and exists in the form it does because of them.

I don't think the blueprint analogy works here. From what I know, DNA doesn't have any set blueprint for the positions of all of the cells in the body. It encodes for molecules that form cells and then the cells somehow self-organize into structures that eventually form the complete body.

To me, using a blueprint analogy you'd have to say the blueprint describes an airplane that once you construct enough of them interact in such a way as to build their own airports, plan their own routes, fly themselves and produce their own online booking software and that's still nowhere near as complex as what's happening inside a nematode let alone a human.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#483

Post by kmoser »

serverholic wrote: post #470
kmoser wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is where Carmack's optimism goes awry. He says: "...as soon as you’re at the point where you have the equivalent of a toddler—something that is a being, it’s conscious, it’s not Einstein, it can’t even do multiplication—if you’ve got a creature that can learn, you can interact with and teach it things on some level." He's wrong. There is currently no practical way to produce a software system that possesses…

I don’t think he actually cares about mimicking humans, I think he just wants a truly intelligent AI system that can learn in a sophisticated way like humans do. I think that’s actually pretty doable. Take for example flying. We don’t build airplanes that flap their wings because we have a deeper understanding of flight that allows us to build flying machines far beyond the capabilities of any animal. Likewise, once…

AGI not bound to a physical presence is almost an oxymoron. Without basic motivation (hunger, sleep, happiness, etc.), how will it learn? What is its incentive to actually do anything? What's to prevent it from telling us to take a hike?

"Intelligence" is not something easily abstracted away from the physical world, especially if you want something to learn on its own. How will an AGI to learn that stoves are hot?

The main challenge I see to creating such a system that can truly learn is that you will have to constrain it to have motivation to learn and follow your directions, and nothing else. And even if you could add such constraints, what would "learning" mean to such a device? What would stop it from going off on useless tangents, like attempting to count every grain of sand you show it? Anything with as much autonomy as it takes to have AGI will likely start coming to conclusions we don't want it to.

My guess is that in the near future, either we'll create something that is beyond our ability to control effectively, or it will be yet another clever simulation of AGI that is not really AGI.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#484

Post by marsven_422 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #98
foldr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s been going on about AI for at least a couple of years now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21530860 It’s certainly possible that he will have a novel idea, but I haven’t seen anything come out of it yet. I’m sure Carmack’s mathematical ability exceeds that of the average game developer (and certainly my own), but the AI field isn’t short of math whizzes.

I assume Carmack can pick up a lot about a new technical topic in a few years, similarly to how Bill Gates could learn a lot about vaccines and healthcare in a few years. "Hi, I'm (rich and nerd famous person) calling for (expert in field)." Probably spending most of that time being tutored by that experts PhD students.

[dead]

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#485

Post by foobarqux »

lostmsu wrote: post #480
foobarqux wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is very basic: These "models" don't tell you anything about the human language faculty. They can be useful tools but don't serve science. Chomky's point is that there is a lot of evidence that humans don't use a statistical process to produce language and these statistical "models" don't tell you anything about the human language faculty. Whether your 1 & 2 are meaningful depend on how you define "model" wh…

I argue to get some non-contradictory worldview. Re: meaningfulness. Your scientific vs engineering model distinction is not how "scientific model" is defined. It includes both. The existence of the model itself does explain something, specifically, that statistics can model language. That alone is explanatory power, so the claim that it doesn't explain anything is a lie. Therefore it is both an "engineering" model (…

Science is about understanding the natural world, if you want to redefine it to mean something else fine but the point still stands: LLMs do not explain anything about the natural world, specifically anything about the human language faculty. Again it's clear you do not care about this! Instead you want to spend time arguing to make sure labels you like are applied to things you like.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#486

Post by jlawson »

jimmcslim wrote: post #57

This will be a provocative question, but is there any form of AGI that won’t ultimately share the attributes of slavery? Can AGI exist without also creating an artificial consciousness/self-awareness?

Even if it's conscious, that doesn't mean it's suffering.

Think of a happy dog. Dogs are subject to our whims and do what we want or face consequences. But they like it because we bred them to like it. So is that evil? Is that slavery?

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#487

Post by jamiek88 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #467
idle_zealot wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we actually do have something of a comparison we can draw here. It'd be like kidnapping a person and inducing a coma through drugs. With the extra wrinkle that the person in question doesn't age, and so isn't deprived of some of their lifespan. Still a very serious crime.

Plus everybody else does age, so the damage done isn't just depriving them of freedom, it's depriving them after they wake up of the life they knew. Some functional equivalent of the death of personality, to the degree personality is context-dependent (which it is). Now me: I'd love to get into a safe stasis pod and come out 200 years from now. I'd take that deal today. But for most people this would be a grievous in…

I suspect on this site of all sites there’d be a line for that pod.

I’ll bring donuts.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#488

Post by 93po »

eloff wrote: post #457
93po wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of those people are a burden to society. This is both extremely dehumanizing and also not true. Forced prison work isn't paying anything back to society. It's lining the pockets of people who are profiting from forced labor.

It is true. Society paid a price from their crimes and then pays an ongoing cost to prosecute and maintain them in prison. It’s a very high cost. I imagine the underpaid labor goes to reducing that cost either directly or indirectly (if it did not, why would it be allowed.)

What price did society pay for a guy driving around with a bunch of weed in his car for personal use? Countless people have been sent to prison for years for something as dumb as this. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about to so widely call these people a burden.

>if it did not, why would it be allowed.

because we live in a society that is massively exploited by greedy scumbags who are enabled by people like you thinking it's justified

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#489

Post by jhoelzel »

lostmsu wrote: post #469
jhoelzel wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so we are both agreeing on the same thing? :D

Conceptually, no. For me your statement sounds like it says we did not solve flight, because our planes have to land.

Well I am in fact trying to argue that the self feedback loop is what is missing to solve AGI and even more so implying that the reason for that may be that there are different ways to see a "human" psychologically. Also that validity in data can only be achieved using a multi modal approach with source ranking.

Psychology essentially has the same problem and is only a "science" where reproducible. Quantitative and Qualitative psychology have 2 approaches to the same solution whereas the latter is "reading between the lines" and the former is "bean counting", meaning statistical interference.

I am trying to say that friend of mine has created "Chicken Infinite" in 2014, which is basically an endless auto generated cooking book. Deep-L has also been around for a while. These applications lead me to believe that text applications, trained on a large dataset do not have to be this intensive.

Furthermore what makes chatgpt enticing, is its chat interface which is using a multi model approach too. Have it create a detailed story for you with multiple prompts and then ask it to generate the prompt to generate this story and you will see various model instructions. (or at least you could last month).

Or differently put, there is no AGI because the understanding function is simply not present and i think that the reasoning for that is buried in the approach of the human mind.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#490

Post by sn9 »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #482
sn9 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're encoded in the laws of physics. Kinda like asking if gravity and fluid dynamics are encoded in the blueprint for an aircraft. The design relies on them, and exists in the form it does because of them.

I don't think the blueprint analogy works here. From what I know, DNA doesn't have any set blueprint for the positions of all of the cells in the body. It encodes for molecules that form cells and then the cells somehow self-organize into structures that eventually form the complete body. To me, using a blueprint analogy you'd have to say the blueprint describes an airplane that once you construct enough of them inte…

Yeah that's a little more accurate. Analogies are usually limited.

But though it's not literally about locations in the sense of physical coordinates, the way cell signalling and the molecular feedback loops that drive development are still reliant on basic physical laws.

It would be completely redundant and unnecessary to encode those laws themselves since they're invariant across time and space. Physics and chemistry are fixed.

It would never make sense for DNA to literally encode information about physical laws in the same way it wouldn't make sense to do so on an airplane blueprint, because the design of the blueprint was itself constrained by those laws, as would any alternative design.

Post reply on HN