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

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

ai100.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#51

Post by ThomPete »

argonaut wrote: post #48
ThomPete wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again you are missing the point. A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then. Here is another expert "In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a profe…

There is irony in trying to refute my single expert opinion with another single expert opinion (via an article). Reply to below: You're the one asserting that experts thought Go wouldn't be dominated by computers for a long time. The burden of proof lies on you. "Some experts thought it would happen by now, some didn't, there was no consensus" doesn't have quite the ring to it!

No the irony is that you dont see I gave you both.

I gave you both an expert and and an article claiming backing my claim up.

Find me on single article claiming that it's common knowledge that Go would beat a human soon back then and you have me.

Until then I am pretty confident the main consensus was as I claimed and which is my main point.

We mostly underestimate how fast this is moving and it's not only laymen who get it wrong, many experts do to.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#52

Post by [deleted] »

ThomPete wrote: post #51
argonaut wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is irony in trying to refute my single expert opinion with another single expert opinion (via an article). Reply to below: You're the one asserting that experts thought Go wouldn't be dominated by computers for a long time. The burden of proof lies on you. "Some experts thought it would happen by now, some didn't, there was no consensus" doesn't have quite the ring to it!

No the irony is that you dont see I gave you both. I gave you both an expert and and an article claiming backing my claim up. Find me on single article claiming that it's common knowledge that Go would beat a human soon back then and you have me. Until then I am pretty confident the main consensus was as I claimed and which is my main point. We mostly underestimate how fast this is moving and it's not only laymen who…

[deleted]

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#53

Post by ThomPete »

the8472 wrote: post #47
ThomPete wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but it doesn't need to be as smart as humans to hurt us and neither do AI it just needs to be everywhere. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

Are you thinking about grey goo? The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption. So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a ti…

I am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us because in order for them to be helpful they get so much power over us that their continued improvements become fundamental to our survival beyond the scope of our ability to understand it.

The "system" does not need to have intent or be even closely aware to be dangerous to humans.

And so the article sets up a false premise if the quoted conclusion is to be the base of judging whether it's going to be a threat to us or not.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#54

Post by ThomPete »

argonaut wrote: post #49
aab0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the rest of that quote: "...based on the same method of intensive analysis—brute force, basically—that Deep Blue employed for chess."

He was half-wrong about the specific methods used (I say half-wrong because half of AlphaGo relies on relatively-brute-force MCTS). I don't think this detracts from my point - it is hard for any researcher to predict the exact methods that will be used a decade from now.

You don't have a point.

You tried to use one expert as a refutation of my claim that there was a general consensus with how long it would take for computers to beat a human in Go.

A simple search on google will provide you with plenty of writing backing that sentiment up.

Asking any of your friends who took AI classes back then would confirm the same.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#55

Post by ThomPete »

daveguy wrote: post #43
ThomPete wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#56

Post by paavokoya »

ThomPete wrote: post #53
the8472 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking about grey goo? The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption. So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a ti…

I am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us because in order for them to be helpful they get so much power over us that their continued improvements become fundamental to our survival beyond the scope of our ability to understand it. The "system" does not need to have intent or be even closely aware to be dangerous to humans. And so the article sets up a false premise if the quoted conclusi…

  I am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us
Reminds me of post 9/11 "homeland security" measures

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#57

Post by PhasmaFelis »

daveguy wrote: post #43
ThomPete wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

Pretty much every living thing reproduces exponentially until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment.

(Humans, fortunately, are starting to get better about this.)

Also, you want "logarithmic," not "logistic."

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#58

Post by ewjordan »

cmarschner wrote: post #35
teabee89 wrote: post #3

I find it surprising that they don't mention Numenta's work on Hierarchical Temporal Memory.

Some reasons here: http://fastml.com/yann-lecuns-answers-from-the-reddit-ama/

"Ask them what error rate they get on MNIST or ImageNet"

While I agree that Numenta probably doesn't have any sort of full-fledged AI, the human brain does terribly on MNIST and ImageNet compared to the state of the art. So we would fail that test.

Getting stuck on toy problems like ImageNet and overoptimizing solutions that can't possibly be applied more generally (except as dumb preprocessors) is not likely to lead in the most interesting directions, even if it's incredibly useful and profitable in the meantime.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#59

Post by hyperpallium »

Animats wrote: post #28

It's a surprise-free document. It could have read roughly the same in 1985, but different technologies would have been mentioned. The big change in AI is that it now makes money. AI used to be about five academic groups with 10-20 people each. The early startups all failed. Now it's an industry, maybe three orders of magnitude bigger. This accelerates progress. Technically, the big change in AI is that digesting raw…

You may be right about the selling power of the "AI" brand, but it seems that AI technology routinely becomes thought of as just technology.

Boole called his algebra "The Laws of Thought"; OOP; lisp was an AI technology (much of which has made its way into other languages); formal languages; etc.

The traditional goalpost rule is that once computers can do it, it's no longer "intelligent" (e.g, chess). A change today is "AI" success as a marketing term.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#60

Post by wging »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #57
daveguy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

Pretty much every living thing reproduces exponentially until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment. (Humans, fortunately, are starting to get better about this.) Also, you want "logarithmic," not "logistic."

> Also, you want "logarithmic," not "logistic."

Don't think so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

The 'S' curve of logistic growth looks exponential for a while, which is why the question arises. By contrast, no one mistakes logarithmic growth for exponential growth for very long.

Post reply on HN