Live data from Hacker News

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

facebook.com

61–70 of 930 posts

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

#61
post #26

i say this with respect and humility, but i am very surprised at the naivete with which John addressed the subject of AGI. he is so casual about it -- not only the idea of working on it but also the idea of it existing at all. he seems oblivious to the gravity of that discovery. it is not just "very valuable," it will be earth shattering and probably wipe out humanity. and its his side-project. and his son will help…

He might as well casually work on Faster Than Light travel, or a Grand Unified Theory.

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

#62

Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I wonder what kind of advances are needed for AGI. 1. Biological brains are non-differentiable spiking networks much more complicated than backpropagated ANNs. 2. Ion channels may or may not be affected by quantum effects. 3. The search space is huge (but organisms aren't optimal and natural selection is probably local search) 4. If it took ~3.8b years t…

From what I understand, quantum effects being essential to the process is a fringe belief. Penrose is probably the most famous 'serious person' (sorry Deepak Chopra) to espouse the idea, but I'm inclined to believe that might be a Linus Pauling/Vitamin C sort of scenario. Penrose started from the perspective of believing there must be quantum effects, then began fishing for physical evidence of it.

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

#63

I was wondering why his tweeting about graphics and VR went to 0. We've gone back into the part of the cycle where VR is an odd curiousity again, haven't we?

Unfortunately VR turned out to be an intensely nauseating puke fest for a lot of people.

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

#64

I hope he'll go the hybrid symbolic and neural network way (causal and statistical), instead of just statistical. AGI needs a type system... I hope I'll achieve AGI before him but it's nice to know there's some real competition! (because, reader, there are almost 0 researchers seriously trying to achieve AGI in a not totally bullshit way. Only opencog and Cyc comes to mind).

Are you really that sure that the approaches to increasing the generality of AI being taken by LeCun (self-supervised model learning), Hinton (capsule networks) and Bengio (state representation learning) are all "total bullshit"?

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

#65
post #28

John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. Computer science now occupies the place physics once did, in its impact on moving the world forward. Best of luck to him, I look forward to seeing what he produces!

You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life.

Hehe, I love CS, but give me significant advances in physics, chemistry or medicine over some new "breakthrough" in machine learning.

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

#66
post #26

i say this with respect and humility, but i am very surprised at the naivete with which John addressed the subject of AGI. he is so casual about it -- not only the idea of working on it but also the idea of it existing at all. he seems oblivious to the gravity of that discovery. it is not just "very valuable," it will be earth shattering and probably wipe out humanity. and its his side-project. and his son will help…

What is your source for saying AGI will probably wipe out humanity? How could we ever even attempt to guess at the motivations of something we can barely comprehend and doesn't even exist yet?

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

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life.

I think you're on the wrong site if you're wanting to criticize software development as a career and suggest it does more harm than good

Yes, join the echo chamber or get out.

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

#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 extolled his frustration with having to do the sort of "managing up" of constantly having to convince others of a technical path he sees as critical. He's clearly the type that is happiest when he's deep in a technical problem rather than bureaucracy, and he likes moving fast.

On top of that, he likes sharing with the community with talks and such, and ever since going under the FB umbrella, he's had to clear everything he says in public with Facebook PR, which clearly annoyed him.

He's hungry for a new hard challenge. VR isn't really it right now since it's more hardware-bound by the need for hard-core optical research than software right now. With the Quest, he (in my opinion) solidified VR's path to mobile standalones. It's time to try his hand at another magic trick while he's on his game.

John's the very definition of a world-class, tried and true engineer/scientist. He's shown time and time again the ability to dive into a field and become an expert very quickly (he went from making video games to literally building space rockets for a good bit before inventing the modern VR field with Palmer).

If there's anyone I'd trust to both be able to dive into AGI quickly and do it the right(tm) way, it's John Carmack.

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

#69
post #56
post #28

John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. Computer science now occupies the place physics once did, in its impact on moving the world forward. Best of luck to him, I look forward to seeing what he produces!

why would being born in the current century preclude one from making fundamental contributions? You are making a common mistake of assuming that just because someone is good at something like programing computers the same skill would translate identically to a completely different domain. If anything he is lucky to have been born in an era where his skill of programming computers could be put to use - otherwise his t…

High intelligence in one technical domain translates well enough to competence in other technical domains. Carmack isn't just a programmer, he is a highly creative technical problem solver. However, AGI does seem orders of magnitude more complex than developing 3D game engines.

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

#70
post #42

Progress in AI is due to data and computational power advances. I wonder what kind of advances are needed for AGI. 1. Biological brains are non-differentiable spiking networks much more complicated than backpropagated ANNs. 2. Ion channels may or may not be affected by quantum effects. 3. The search space is huge (but organisms aren't optimal and natural selection is probably local search) 4. If it took ~3.8b years t…

You forgot to mention, crucially, that neurons in close proximity affect each other, which is just one of the things that makes modeling of more than a few neurons in time domain a complete non-starter. It all results in enormous systems of PDEs which we don't know how to solve yet at all. You could say that we do not have the right mathematical apparatus to model any such thing.

Pure physical modeling are likely a bad representation for the phenomena resulting in intelligence, especially granted we've simulated it with much simpler discrete structures. PDEs may even be disastrously bad, like trying to describe a line in space with a table of points, instead of the degrees of freedom.

I would imagine that a PDE may cover diffuse behaviors governing say, how learning happens mechanically, but it is almost certainly a language/representational barrier, the relationship between the structure of the animal mind, learning, and seemingly simple phenomena, like afterimages.

The molecules are arbitrary and the timescale doesn't matter.

Post reply on HN