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

691–700 of 930 posts

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

#691

Post by jaster »

xamuel wrote: post #683
larkery wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right to bring up the NFLT, but I don't think it is applicable, it just points at the real question. The key assumption to get the NFLT is that each environment vote has the same weight, i.e. we are targeting a uniform distribution on objective functions / environments / problems / whatever you call it. If you break this assumption, you get an opposite result which is that search algorithms divide into…

Right, the environments are not uniformly distributed. In fact, the paper actually defines not one single intelligence comparator but an infinite family, parametrized by a hyperparameter which is, essentially, a choice of which environments vote and how to count their votes. Crucially, this doesn't change the truth of the structural theorems (except that some of the theorems require the hyperparameter satisfy certain…

Thanks for the clarification.

Like I said, I only skimmed your paper, so I hope it was clear my comment was not intended as a criticism (or even as a review) :)

I think I agree with the general terms of your conclusion personally.

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

#692

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #543
pron wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks. Rodents? Try insects [1]. In the late 40s and early 50s, when neural networks were first explored with great enthusiasm, some of the leading minds of that generation believed (were convinced, in fact) that artificial intelligence (or AGI in today's terms) is five/ten years away; the skeptics, like Alan Turing, thought it was fifty years away. Sev…

> [1]: To those saying that insects or rodents can't play Go or chess -- they can't sort numbers, either, and even early computers did it better than humans. They probably can, internally; they just can't operate on tokens we recognize as numbers explicitly. For a computer analogy, take Windows Notepad - there's probably plenty of sorting, computing square roots and linear interpolation being done under the hood in t…

Computers still do that much better -- there's no way an insect, or a mammal, brain internally sorts ten million numbers -- and even much better (at least faster) than humans. My point is only that the fact computers can do some tasks better than insects or humans is irrelevant, in itself, to the question of intelligence.

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

#693

Post by MichaelHoste »

gray_-_wolf wrote: post #673
0-_-0 wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puzzle game with a great story. I recommend it to the HN people.

I loved it, but my issue with that game was severe motion sickness after 20-30 minutes... never finished it :(

I loved and finished the game but I had the same issue on two occasions. I felt sick and I had to stop. Now I know it was not the food I had just eaten but the game itself, thank you!

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

#694

Post by Syntonicles »

randomsearch wrote: post #531
Greed wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why do you see VR as being a necessary step towards the creation of AGI? Those two don't seem related at all in any way that I can discern.

Maybe “necessary” is too strong, but “likely pivotal” is better. If VR becomes widespread, and amazingly high quality, then almost everything we do will migrate to VR. Once that is the case, we will have an unprecedented amount of data about human behaviour, and near endless data for training, experimenting, and testing AIs. The problems of AI will become much easier to formulate: “replace this person in this VR scen…

That's a fascinating idea. That virtual worlds are good test-beds for AI is obvious, but I never considered that we will have thousands of hours for every person to tell us how they approach any given physical task. That's a gold mine for robotics research.

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

#695

Post by tgv »

drcode wrote: post #227
nwsm wrote: post #195

What a joke. Carmack is going to sit at home and solve what teams of scientists can't do in decades. I'm complaining less about Carmack wanting to spend his time doing this and more about the comments here acting like he is some 10000x research scientist.

There are few AI researchers (maybe around 5 or so) that could credibly claim technical accomplishments of any sort in the same ballpark as Carmack's. People with this level of track record should not be underestimated, there aren't many of them out there... They matter.

That first line is pure nonsense.

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

#696

Post by shashankp »

geogra4 wrote: post #676
Jaruzel wrote: post #518

Carmack's post in full: Starting this week, I’m moving to a "Consulting CTO” position with Oculus. I will still have a voice in the development work, but it will only be consuming a modest slice of my time. As for what I am going to be doing with the rest of my time: When I think back over everything I have done across games, aerospace, and VR, I have always felt that I had at least a vague “line of sight” to the sol…

Too bad he didn't go for his runner up. cost effective/mass produceable fission reactors could save humanity.

Carmack creates AI, AI is used to invent effective fission reactors. Check and mate.

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

#697

Post by Strom »

randomsearch wrote: post #597
randomsearch wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scientific work has Carmack done?

This was downvoted, so I figured it must be obvious. I googled but as far as I can tell, Carmack is an engineer not a scientist. No formal scientific training, no scientific work.

The word you're looking for is academic. Carmack hasn't done academic work, but he has done plenty of scientific work. Scientific work is no less scientific if it isn't published in an academic journal. Academia doesn't hold a monopoly on the scientific method.

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

#698

Post by krak12 »

tarsinge wrote: post #655
jacobush wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll take a shot: "it would follow that anyone tackling AGI would have some experience applying machine learning competitively in some public space". No, that would absolutely not follow. (I'm a pretty good devil's advocate, but I can't with this one.) And given AGI would come from some completely new breakthrough not related to the current practice of "machine learning", competitions may be completely moot. They…

> And given AGI would come from some completely new breakthrough not related to the current practice of "machine learning" I’m not so sure of that. Intuitively AGI feels like being able to generalize and automatize what is already done in specialized problems, like having a meta program that that orchestrate and apply specialized subsystems, and adapt existing one. If playing Go, Starcraft, Speech recognition, Comput…

Some people already developed prototypes on that direction.

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

#699

Post by xena »

fastball wrote: post #535
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…

Sooooo, The Talos Principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talos_Principle

Who would have thought that a philosophical puzzle game could come from the creators of Serious Sam.

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

#700

Post by goldenkey »

simonh wrote: post #675
goldenkey wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree with you. I know many chess players at master and Grand Master level. Look at Bobby Fischer too. Human specialization does not carry over very well to other tasks, only marginally...

I don't think that's a disagreement, I think you're right. Most of the benefit someone like that would get from their competence in Chess or Go would be incidental ones. In fact I would say your experience confirms my understanding of this, optimizing for a single domain in the way Alphago does or even in the way humans do, has little to do with general intelligence.

Ah, I misread. So we agree then. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the hippocampus was highly developed in chess players like Bobby Fischer which could translate into better spatial reasoning. Perhaps general intelligence is best trained by variance.... Not targeted training.
Post reply on HN