631–640 of 643 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think its a silly idea that consciousness cannot be produced by computation.
It may have some physical aspect to it - some property of matter (panpsychism?) or quantum effects.
How about “pancomputationalism”, aka, causality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I want other people's skin in the game instead of mine" is not necessarily virtuous.
Carmack’s goal is not to become the most virtuous person in the world. His goal is to make the AGI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone please explain like we are fifteen why AGI is impossible, at least right now? Or if not AGI, then something similar to a cat/etc mind? As far as I am imagining it, current models are pipelines of various trained networks (and more traditional filters in the mix) that operate like request-reply. Why can’t you just connect few different pipelines in a loop/graph and make an autonomous self-feeding entity? B…
You will be hard pressed to have an interesting discussion about AGI because the way the term is defined makes it uninteresting. It’s like trying to have a discussion about aviation by asking how close we are to fly exactly like birds. It’s not really relevant to our ability to design good planes. Then any discussions will be highly handicapped by the fact most still view human intelligence as something special. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was surprised by how bullish he is about this. At least a few years ago the experts in the field didn't see AGI anywhere near us for at least a few decades, and all of the bulls were physicists, philosophers or Deepak-Chopra-for-the-TED-crowd bullshit artists who have never written a line of code in their lives, mostly milking that conference and podcast dollar, preaching Skynet-flavored apocalypse or rapture. To s…
if Carmack's in I'm in. Has he ever been drastically wrong?
Does anyone else subscribe to the idea that AGI is impossible/unlikely without 'embodied cognition', i.e. we cannot create a human-like 'intelligence' unless it has a similar embodiment to us, able to move around a physical environment with it's own limbs, sense of touch, sight, etc. ? Any arguments against the necessity of this? I feel like any AGI developed in silico without freedom of movement will be fundamentall…
AGI will be more dangerous that nuclear weapons. People are not allowed to start a nuclear weapon company. At all. Why are people allowed to casually start an AGI company?
I wonder if Carmacks moral compass is in order. First he sticks around at Facebook, now he endangers humanity with AGI. And i'm only half joking.
Don't get me wrong, I've read master of doom/doom engine books like we all have, but first Oculus/Facebook and now this?
Maybe I'll care once they produce something amazing, but until then I'll still marvel at the tricks in Doom/Quake code.
I'm slightly scared that they'll succeed. But not in the usual "robots will kill us" way. What I am afraid of is that they succeed, but it turns out similar to VR: as an inconsequential gimmick. That they use their AGIs to serve more customized ads to people, and that's where it ends.
If an AGI were set free to serve ads to people it would essentially initiate mass brainwashing. You would see an ad and be completely defenseless against it and you could be compelled to do anything.
AGI is in a completely different universe to "Smart AI"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The "6 or so" breakthroughs sounds about right to me. But I don't really see the reason for being optimistic about 2030. It could just as easily be 2050, or 2100, etc. Well if you read between the lines of the Gato paper there may be no more hurdles left and scale is the only boundary left. >Not a recognition that we fundamentally still don't know how brains work! (or what intelligence is, etc.) This is a really bad…
I can acknowledge the point about planes, since I believe in tinkering/engineering over theory. But I'd say planes are more like "narrow AI", and we already have that. Planes do a economically useful thing, just like narrow AIs do economically useful things. (But what birds do is also valuable and efficient, and it's still an open research problem to emulate them. Try getting a plane or drone to outmaneuver prey like…
Not sure I buy the analogy. A plane is already more like an AGI, you have to figure out enough aerodynamics to get the thing to be airworthy, enough materials science to develop the proper materials to build it, enough mechanical engineering to get the thing to be maneuverable, enough Software to make it all work together etc. So it's already an amalgam of many other types of systems. A Hang Glider might be more akin to a Narrow AI in this framework.
>I'd consider the possibility that we WILL get AGI in 10, 30 or 100 years, but it won't be that impactful compared to the narrow AIs already running everything!
I think this is misunderstanding what an AGI really represents. Imagine John Neumann compared to a Chimpanzee. There's no comparison right, the chimp can't even begin to understand the simplest plans or motivations Von Neumann has, now imagine an AGI is to Von Neumann as Von Neumann is to the Chimp, only the metaphor doesn't even work because there's no reason the AGI can't scale further until we're talking about something relative to us as we are relative to Ants or Bacteria. If you think nothing will change when a system like that exists then I don't know what to tell you.
>I'd consider the possibility that we WILL get AGI in 10, 30 or 100 years, but it won't be that impactful compared to the narrow AIs already running everything! It will be slow and suffer from Moravec's paradox (i.e. being much less efficient than a human, for a very long time)
If one considers the above and is comfortable with the idea that such a thing might be possible in our or our children's lifetimes then we should be doing everything in our powers to solve the alignment problem which is extremely non trivial and enormously consequential. At minimum an AGI could direct, orchestrate or improve the Narrow AI's in ways that no Human could hope to understand. All bets are off at that point.
I think the paradox was more poignant in robotics, but in any case recent advances have put tasks like object recognition, real world path planning, logical reasoning, etc well past human child levels and at or beyond adult levels in some cases.
>Now even Musk admits that, after Gary Marcus and others were telling him that since 2015.
Marcus is a constant goalpost mover and he'll be shouting about AGI's not really understanding the world while he's being disassembled by nanobots.