551–560 of 930 posts
Roko's basilisk[0] will remember this. 0. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not convinced current AI is the approach to an AGI This is a non-sequitor. I didn't argue that current AI theory, or Kaggle, will lead us to AGI. > Kaggle is almost just an optimization fest Public machine learning competitions have produced a lot of innovative learning techniques. If Kaggle is so easy, and AGI so hard, it would follow that anyone tackling AGI would have some experience applying machine learni…
Ok, I'll take a shot: "it would follow that anyone tackling AGI would have some experience applying machine learning competitively in some public space". No, that would absolutely not follow. (I'm a pretty good devil's advocate, but I can't with this one.) And given AGI would come from some completely new breakthrough not related to the current practice of "machine learning", competitions may be completely moot. They…
Turning a blind eye to existing knowledge may result in reinventing things that already exist. Nobody expects students to follow the same concepts as their teachers, the point is just to leverage existing knowledge.
> I could even imagine a stumbling AGI being very stupid compared to just about any machine learning solution thrown at it - yet being undeniably AGI. Like a dog not being very good at DOTA, Star Craft or Chess, yet it undeniably possesses some kind of general intelligence.
People have debated whether animals are intelligent for ages. This is another type of problem, how to define intelligence. The most famous attempt in recent times is the Turing test.
This is encouraging. If you're going to work on artificial general intelligence, a reasonable context in which to work on it is game NPCs. They have to operate in a world, interact with others, survive, and accomplish goals. Simulator technology is now good enough that you can do quite realistic worlds. Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Robotics has the same issue…
I mean: maybe it's more efficient to have it read all of wikipedia really well before adding all the other noisy senses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, pray tell, did Elon do that is "novel"?
He made it cool to drive an electric car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks Rodents can't play Go or a lot of other humanly-meaningful tasks. We don't need to build an artificial cell. A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together, this is as far from efficient design as can be. The same way we don't build two-legged airplanes, we don't need anything that's close to the wet spiky…
The problem with the analogy is that the car, by far, is not a general transportation device. Practically, most cars are solving a very constrained transportation problem: moving on roads that humans made. We don't have anything remotely close to a wetware-enabled transportation device, something that can move on flat land, climb mountains, swim in bodies of water, crawl in caves, hide in trees. Within the constraine…
Wow, 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…
This is encouraging. If you're going to work on artificial general intelligence, a reasonable context in which to work on it is game NPCs. They have to operate in a world, interact with others, survive, and accomplish goals. Simulator technology is now good enough that you can do quite realistic worlds. Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Robotics has the same issue…
I did my msc thesis in AI back then writing a dedicated simulater for a specific robot used in autonomous systems research. You find that especially when trying to faithfully reproduce sensor signals you need to dive deep into not just the physics of e.g. infrared light, but also the specific electronic operation of the sensor itself. But that kind of realism is not needed for all AGI research. I also spent some year…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but it sounds weird to me because Carmack has spent his whole life involved with games but has not been known for an interest in game AI before.
Game AI has nothing to do with AGI (or even regular AI) beyond the surface level description OP provided. The reason game AI hasn't progressed in the last few decades isn't because technology is holding us back - after all we can already achieve impressive machine learning feats using current-gen GPUs - it's because bad NPC AI is by design , so players can learn to overcome them and succeed. Very few people want to p…
The game may even be played by saying things on Twitter and becoming interesting enough that people DM you and try to build a relationship with you, while you're a bot.