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

631–640 of 930 posts

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

#631

Post by username90 »

olalonde wrote: post #532
piinbinary wrote: post #258

What's a useful definition of what AGI is? If you have a computer that does some clever AI stuff, what criteria do you look for to decide that it has a general intelligence?

It's generally used to mean human level intelligence (e.g. an AI that can learn any task a human can). An often cited criteria is passing the Turing test.

The Turing test is too easy. My test would be when the AI can apply to a random remote job, get it and then receive salary for a few years, quit, apply to a new job with updated CV, get a raise etc without anyone noticing it is an AGI.

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

#632

Post by amatic »

ivanhoe wrote: post #559
PeterStuer wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Modeling everything realistically is super hard - any interaction with the real-world is so full of the weirdest unexpected electric and mechanical issues. Who hasn't tried it first-hand can't imagine the half of ways that will almost certainly go wrong on the first try :) ... but as you've said for developing the AGI as a concept simplified worlds should work just fine.

True. Simulations are always a simplification of reality and leave a lot out of the picture.

On the flip side, successful robotics concepts might have more chance of being relevant to AGI.

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

#633

Post by bildung »

sildur wrote: post #621
noir-york wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child picks up an apple but doesn't know what an apple "is". It doesn't even have the vocabulary to describe it. As adults we know what an apple is because we understand it as a concept, the ideal "apple", and can manipulate the concept into areas way outside the original concept (say, the phrase "apple of my eye").

Yes, but you did not manipulate the concept. You did not invent that phrase, but simply learned its meaning. A machine can do that.

Every child reinvents the concept. It wasn't there on birth, and the word and phrases didn't contain it. That's a bit difficult topic to wrap ones head around, but it is critically important to differ between signified (the concept) and signifier (the words etc.).

The child develops concepts and is able to create and evaluate inferences, and thus able to understand metaphors etc.

The concept is what most AI approaches lack. Googles image search can identify apples, and cherries, and probably can categorize both as fruits, but it can't infer that this probably contains seeds, is a living being etc.

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

#634

Post by username90 »

drcode wrote: post #237
nwsm wrote: post #217

Yann LeCun's [0] comment on the post: Welcome to the club, John. A word of warning though: There is no such thing as AGI. Reaching human-level AI is a good goal. But human intelligence is very, very specialized. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yann_LeCun?fbclid=IwAR2e9mzCqS...

LeCun is more accomplished and smarter than I will ever be, but his thoughts on the term 'AGI' just seem like dumb pedantry regarding word definitions to me.

Sounds like it is more like an wishful thinking from a person who spent his life mastering deep nets than a nitpick. Like "Sure deep nets can never be an AGI, but Humans are not AGI's so we can reach human level performance with deep nets, it is not a dead end! IT IS NOT A DEAD END!".

I think the saying "Science Advances One Funeral at a Time" applies here.

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

#635

Post by toxik »

codingslave wrote: post #508
emmanuel_1234 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be fun if the next Newton turns out to be the guy who wrote Doom and other FPS, games that were blamed for any kind of surge of violence until the GTA games show up?

Yeah, weird to think that todays newton could be seen on Joe Rogans Podcast talking about the future of gaming

It would fit, Newton was apparently quite insufferable in social settings — Carjack has a stroke of that

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

#636

Post by simonh »

bildung wrote: post #633
sildur wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you did not manipulate the concept. You did not invent that phrase, but simply learned its meaning. A machine can do that.

Every child reinvents the concept. It wasn't there on birth, and the word and phrases didn't contain it. That's a bit difficult topic to wrap ones head around, but it is critically important to differ between signified (the concept) and signifier (the words etc.). The child develops concepts and is able to create and evaluate inferences , and thus able to understand metaphors etc. The concept is what most AI approach…

Or even that it is a three dimensional object, or what that means.

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

#637

Post by oblio »

a1studmuffin wrote: post #488
guelo wrote: post #440

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…

I'd give anything for a "moral"/"nice-guy" AGI that could replace my Dota 2 team mates and opponents.

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

#638

Post by DonHopkins »

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

Or a Philip K Dick novel that's so weird and prescient, nobody's been able to figure out how to make a movie from it.

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

http://mxmossman.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-three-stigmata-of-...

>The Perky Pat Layouts itself is an interesting concept. Here's Dick, in the early 60's, coming up with the idea for virtual worlds. I mean, Second Life and other virtual worlds are just a mapping of the Perky Pat Layouts onto cyberspace. Today Facebook acts like the PP Layouts, taking people's minds off toil and work and letting them engage others in a shared virtual hallucination -- you're not actually physically with your friends, and they might not even be your friends.

>Dick’s description of the Can-D experience is essentially a description of virtual sex:

>“Her husband -- or his wife or both of them or everyone in the entire hovel -- could show up while he and Fran were in the state of translation. And their two bodies would be seated at proper distance one from the other; no wrong-doing could be observed, however prurient the observers were. Legally this had been ruled on: no co-habitation could be proved, and legal experts among the ruling UN authorities on Mars and the other colonies had tried -- and failed. While translated one could commit incest, murder, anything, and it remained from a juridicial standpoint a mere fantasy, an impotent wish only.”

>Another character says “when we chew Can-D and leave our bodies we die. And by dying we lose the weight of -- ... Sin.”

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

#639

Post by 0db532a0 »

nefitty wrote: post #567
0db532a0 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Prank video? Satire at most. Did you even watch it?
Post reply on HN