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."
One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
61–70 of 89 posts
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth.
I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but you eventually reach a barrier in what's insured and it is a relatively small exponent. Also, is it still savings if you never spend it? I wonder what is the longest continuous account in banking that has never been touched.
Anyway, that is a tangent and a somewhat artificial scenario. Can you name a naturally occurring scenario? I would accept technology if you could show that it isn't going to level out like all other natural phenomenon.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Please keep your rant to the other subthread. I was addressing aab0's point.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth. I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but…
I am not sure I understand your point.
Who says it needs to be exponential forever?
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#65Earlier 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!
I have never said anything about experts. I have talked about general consensus which includes experts.
You have provided on example, ONE of someone who believed it would happen.
I have provided one expert plus articles saying it wouldn't happen, plus you can google and find plenty of articles that said we wouldn't get it for a long time.
You cannot find a single example of articles which are claiming that it's was a general consensus we would beat Go.
And so you are the one coming up short not me. My claim is not controversial neither have you shown it is.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Humans appear to do quite well on ImageNet (anecdotally, one person got 5.1% error: http://karpathy.github.io/2014/09/02/what-i-learned-from-com...). Of course there are recent deep models that do better than that, but the author opines (and I agree) that an ensemble of trained human annotators would do better than the best deep models.
MNIST is the true toy dataset (doesn't really tell you much about your algorithm's performance) - while there aren't any reported human evaluations of MNIST, LeCun estimates the human error rate is 0.2% - better than any deep models (admittedly without justification: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-95a.pdf).
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup. Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics. This may sound like scien…
Many CEOs are already just trying to operate as a share price optimization algorithm. They don't choose to inject human values into their organizations.
That you don't share their values does not make them non-human
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Please keep your rant to the other subthread. I was addressing aab0's point.
"I don't think this detracts from my point"
Given your point was a link with an example of one person who believed computers would beat GO you were doing more than that.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth. I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but…
The size of the universe.
Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
#70It'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…
I've always been fascinated by the concept of software agents that become self-sufficient (mining/stealing bitcoin to pay for their own hosting) and auto-generate desires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent
I was curious to see what the Distributed Autonomous Organization would do. But when push came to shove, it turned out that one guy was really in charge, and it was really just a way to fund his programmable door lock.