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

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#61

Post by robbedpeter »

hyperpallium2 wrote: post #51
wyattpeak wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer…

The humans move goalposts because intelligence is political.

It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans.

We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse.

By every measure Turing himself considered, the Turing test has been passed. It's only the post-gpt-2 peanut gallery that have insisted on moving the goalposts straight into mysticism and magical thinking.

Machines will be better at everything humans can do, and accomplish things we cannot.

We are living in interesting times, different from anything that's come before - we exist in relation to systems that are learning to think like us.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#62

Post by Causality1 »

theaeolist wrote: post #52
Causality1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think we're going to need a revolution in the fundamental physics of computation. The example I like to use is that a dragonfly brain uses just sixteen neurons to take input from thousands of ommatidia and track prey in 3D space, plot intercept vectors, and send that data to the motor centers of the brain. Calculate how many transistors and watts of power you'd need to replicate that functionality. Now m…

I wonder if there isn't some fundamental misunderstanding here. What if it's not "just the neurons". If you found a Regency TR-1 radio you could wonder "how can this 4-transistor device produce a continuous stream of music, much like Spotify, which requires billions of transistor to run?". Of course, the radio also has an antenna, which is a completely different device than a transistor. The device running Spotify ma…

Exactly my point. If all you want to do is replicate the TR-1 with four transistors, that's easy, just like making a human mind by creating a baby is easy. But making AGI with silicon, while demanding functionality completely alien to a human brain, is like making a TR-1 that can save your playlists and pause/resume the audio while still only using four transistors.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#64

Post by TaylorAlexander »

robbedpeter wrote: post #61
hyperpallium2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The humans move goalposts because intelligence is political.

It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans. We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse. By every measure Turing himself considered,…

> Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans.

Really depends on whether “art” means “making drawings of things” or “making people feel something”. It’s also a very narrow domain. Dall-e can’t sculpt clay (for example), even if you attached a robot arm, without essentially replacing a bunch of the training system logic. Out of the box Dall-e has no provision to manipulate anything to produce art.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#65

Post by hooande »

simonh wrote: post #31
hooande wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI is currently as likely as teleportation, time travel or warp drives. You can write a computer program to do just about anything. Artificial "General" intelligence is simply not a thing. We're not even making progress toward it.

We do not observe teleportation, time travel or warp drive in nature. We also don’t have any practical theory for achieving them as depicted in science fiction. It seems unlikely we will achieve such technologies. Do we observe general intelligence in nature though, here on Earth implemented with the materials available in our environment? If so, it’s a bold claim to make that it will always be impossible to achieve…

How far are we away from gene editing that will allow humans to be born with working gills or wings? Animals have these things, so we know it's possible. But having the technology to do that is very far off, if ever.

The same is true of AGI. Of course it's possible. but right now no one has any clear idea how to do it without extreme brute force.

Personally, I think it's more likely that we'll have a working Alcubierre drive before anything approaching general intelligence

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#66

Post by hyperpallium2 »

robbedpeter wrote: post #61
hyperpallium2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The humans move goalposts because intelligence is political.

It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans. We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse. By every measure Turing himself considered,…

The Turing test employs interview, not artistic creation, to distinguish the human.

The mechanisation of knowledge work has been ongoing (at least) since human accounting with beans - before writing; before number; maybe, even before language.

The humans' real fear will rise when they meet with superior argument.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#67

Post by Ginden »

Causality1 wrote: post #18
scubakid wrote: post #8

Makes me wonder: how's the HN community feeling these days about the actual plausibility / timeline of humans developing true AGI? Personally the more I learn about the current state of AI, and in comparison the way the human brain works, the more skeptical (and slightly disappointed) I tend to get.

Personally I think we're going to need a revolution in the fundamental physics of computation. The example I like to use is that a dragonfly brain uses just sixteen neurons to take input from thousands of ommatidia and track prey in 3D space, plot intercept vectors, and send that data to the motor centers of the brain. Calculate how many transistors and watts of power you'd need to replicate that functionality. Now m…

> The example I like to use is that a dragonfly brain uses just sixteen neurons to take input from thousands of ommatidia and track prey in 3D space, plot intercept vectors, and send that data to the motor centers of the brain.

Human optic nerve can't send more than ~10Mbit/s. Yet, somehow, 60fps at 640x480 screen isn't best possible movie watching setup for one-eyed people, even though it delivers uncompressed 9Mbit/s.

Lots of calculations (like aggregating data to lower-quality image; eg. input of human rod cells is aggregated through interneurons) happen around of body. 16 neurons that you are referring to are likely fed with carefully processed input, not raw input.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#68

Post by katabasis »

robbedpeter wrote: post #61
hyperpallium2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The humans move goalposts because intelligence is political.

It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans. We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse. By every measure Turing himself considered,…

If we continue to move the goalposts of what defines intelligence into mystical/ineffable territory, we may find that humanity no longer qualifies as “intelligent” either.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#69

Post by irrational »

Ginden wrote: post #50
wyattpeak wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer…

> If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can actually do it. 100 year old people usually don't follow news on artificial intelligence, so they will act genuine.

My grandmother is 99 and definitely doesn’t follow news on artificial intelligence. Maybe I should test this on her the next time I’m at her house.

Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

#70

Post by Ginden »

hooande wrote: post #65
simonh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not observe teleportation, time travel or warp drive in nature. We also don’t have any practical theory for achieving them as depicted in science fiction. It seems unlikely we will achieve such technologies. Do we observe general intelligence in nature though, here on Earth implemented with the materials available in our environment? If so, it’s a bold claim to make that it will always be impossible to achieve…

How far are we away from gene editing that will allow humans to be born with working gills or wings? Animals have these things, so we know it's possible. But having the technology to do that is very far off, if ever. The same is true of AGI. Of course it's possible. but right now no one has any clear idea how to do it without extreme brute force. Personally, I think it's more likely that we'll have a working Alcubier…

> How far are we away from gene editing that will allow humans to be born with working gills or wings?

Impossible due to physics limits. Human lungs have 57 square meters for extracting oxygen from fluid with 21% volume oxygen. 30°C air-saturated water have 0.5% of oxygen, so working gills for human would need surface area of 2394 square meters.

Post reply on HN