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

John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 930 posts

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#561

Post by krzat »

Zod666 wrote: post #341
carlosdp wrote: post #68

This 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…

"With the Quest, he (in my opinion) solidified VR's path to mobile standalones" Yes and I really wished he hadn't. Before he joined oculus they were working on the rift2, he steered them away from that to focus on mobile efforts. I do see the appeal of mobile vr but at the end of the day it is basically an android phone in a vr headset. PCvr is already 2 big steps back in graphical quality from desktop games. Mobile…

I think that ideal device would be able to wirelessly connect to PC for best performance, but also work standalone for simpler games.

Quest with Link is actually pretty close to that.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#562

Post by toxik »

alpaca128 wrote: post #473
visarga wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On top of that is some kind of coarse planner giving goals to the lower level systems. There are counterexamples, such as AlphaGo which is all about planning and deep thinking. It also combines learning with evolution (genetic selection).

True, but AlphaGo is specialized on a very specific task where planning and deep thinking is a basic requirement for high level play. We don't need to think 10 "turns" ahead when trying to walk through a door, we just try to push or pull on it. And if the door is locked or if there's another person coming from the opposite side we'll handle that situation when we come across it.

That’s not true, human beings plan ahead when opening doors more than many things — should I try to open this bathroom door or will that make it awkward if it’s locked and I have to explain that to my coworker afterwards? Should I keep this door open for a while so the guy behind me gets through as well? Not to mention that people typically route plan at doorways.

Doors are basically planning triggers more than many things.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#563

Post by CryptoPunk »

sobani wrote: post #538
hnaccy wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming game AI means an agent that directly competes with the player. Plenty of games have NPCs with scripted routines, dialog, triggers, etc that could be improved either by reducing the dev cost to generate them without reducing quality or reacting to player behavior more naturally.

Except in those cases it's even more important that the NPCs don't do anything unexpected. Those NPCs are like actors in a stage play, you don't want them to come up with their own lines and confusing the audience. Don't forget there is a certain randomness with 'more natural' and with randomness you're going to invite Murphy to the party.

Not all NPCs have to be part of a script. They can just be additional characters that add life and realism to the simulated world.

A weapons maker with a unique backstory and realistic conversations that reference it is more interesting than a bot, and opens up the possibility of unscripted side-quests.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#564

Post by haffi112 »

fastbeef wrote: post #523
Animats wrote: post #313

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…

> Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Sounds like the start of a truly horrifying Black Mirror episode

> Sounds like the start of a truly horrifying Black Mirror episode

That episode already exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_the_DJ

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#565

Post by toxik »

visarga wrote: post #444
nikki93 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I believe in this game / simulated world NPC idea too. To get the kind of complexity we want we either need sensors in the real world or interfacing in a virtual world that humans bring complexity to (probably both -- the humans are part of the sensing technology to start). Things like AlphaZero etc. got good cuz they had a simulatable model of the world (just a chess board + next state function in their case).…

Board games have been solved. Now the big boys are working on Starcraft and Dota 2, and it takes a shitload of money to pay for the compute and simulation necessary to train them. No something you can do on the cheap.

The next arena is multi task learning. Sure, I lose to specialized intelligences in each separate game, but I can beat the computer at basically every other game, including the game of coming up with new fun games.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#566

Post by phtrivier »

Totally off-topic, but:

> Runner up for next project was cost effective nuclear fission reactors, which wouldn’t have been as suitable for that style of work.

What would a (high-level) carreer path for that event _look_ like ?

(Disclaimer: I'm not Carmack-level smart. Not sure I'm anyone-s-level smart. Asking for a friend.)

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#567

Post by nefitty »

0db532a0 wrote: post #513
baddox wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember this TED talk many years ago where the speaker proposes that intelligence is maximizing the future options available to you: https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...

Here’s another good TED talk: https://youtu.be/9cflCyyEA2I .

The video linked by the direct parent to my comment is a prank video.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#568

Post by de_watcher »

nradov wrote: post #367
EamonnMR wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical of this assertion. It mimics some bits and pieces of the only GI we know about right now; that's as good a start as any, right?

You can carve a block of wood into something that looks like a computer. That should be a good start on building a device that can run Linux, right?

Bad analogy, it's other way around for Linux. We are building it to run on wooden blocks that hardware manufacturers are producing.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#569

Post by mkl »

knowThySelfx wrote: post #501
keanzu wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isaac Newton is considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of all time and is regarded as the "Father of Calculus". "Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time when Newton lived, what he has done is much the better part." - Gottfried Leibniz http://www.fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm

"Researchers in England may have finally settled the centuries-old debate over who gets credit for the creation of calculus. For years, English scientist Isaac Newton and German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz both claimed credit for inventing the mathematical system sometime around the end of the seventeenth century. Now, a team from the universities of Manchester and Exeter says it knows where the true credit lies —…

That story's by non-experts and sounds like it's based on a press release. There were basic components of calculus well before that too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus

However, calculus proper (derivatives and integrals of general functions, and the connections between them) did not exist until Newton and Leibniz. Other mathematicians made important steps towards it earlier in the 1600s, and if Newton and Leibniz had not existed, others would have figured it out around the same time.

Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence

#570

Post by saagarjha »

rfhjt wrote: post #482
hestefisk wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s assuming maths is the fundamental building block of our brain, our consciousness. I happen to think there are some physical and chemical givens preceding it :)

I merely meant that top mathematicians are substantially smarter and can work with concepts that are beyond the reach of even top programmers. We are generally good at recombining existing building blocks and using existing tools. Mathematicians can build new concepts. If I had the money, I'd try to convince the top mathematicians to work on AI full time.

> I merely meant that top mathematicians are substantially smarter and can work with concepts that are beyond the reach of even top programmers.

[Citation needed]

Post reply on HN