71–80 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you ever ride in the elevator again?
There was a bank of six, I stayed off that one for a week.
The real question isn't whether AGI is possible but whether humans are the fittest carrier of information for our DNA and that seems to be technology in some shape or form helped by things like deep learning.
My bet is always on evolution. And now that technology can learn it's IMO only a matter of time before we will experience another Cambrian explosion if we aren't already.
I've been around AI since the end of the last big hype in the late 80s. The recent leap in machine learning has felt rather hyped to me. I don't think AGI is near. But I find myself agreeing with this article. Strongly. And I have long suspected that, we miss a lot of the significance and opportunities in AI, because we have only one exemplar of 'higher' intelligence: a human being. AI folk are so concerned with gett…
Can you define 'near' for me? I think AGI is likely closer to the present than 1987 was -- that is, I'd bet on having AGI by 2047. (Note: this is distinct from superhuman AGI.) Do you not agree? I think a lot of people underestimate NNs because they think of NNs in terms of the semantics of their history instead of all possible semantics that can be fit to tensor networks. We know [P] that NNs are a sufficient abstra…
Not sensibly in terms of years, no.
It's more a handwaving gut feeling combined with an intuition.
I didn't feel like there was a royal road from symbolic AI to AGI. It doesn't feel to me like there is one from NNs either.
As for the intuition: perhaps it's because it was my PhD topic, I have always felt that there needs to be a breakthrough in emergence, specifically in evolutionary computing (or some other system in which there is a tight feedback loop between behaviour and survival). Something to unshackle the development of AI from human beings deciding what behaviours they want to engineer.
The resulting computation would be orders of magnitude less efficient, considerably less understandable (it is very unlikely to wash dishes or write poetry), but crucially much less fragile. And it has always been the fragility of the engineering which has made AI feel a little smoke and mirrors at times. NN are massively less fragile than symbolic systems, (and orders of magnitude less efficient, for problems symbolic systems are good at) but it does feel like we need another fundamental step.
But, my feelings aside, I agree with the article because I recognise this could well be a 'Manhattan Project' type of event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
alrs was probably in no real danger, but why should they be expected to memorize the exact risk profile of every mechanism they're exposed to? In practice we delegate most risk management to government regulation. It would be very time consuming to evaluate everything on a case by case basis. It's a reasonable heuristic to assume things are safe when they act as they usually do and dangerous when they act differently…
I'm not saying alrs should. The decision to leave is reasonable. The decision to judge others ("What is wrong with people?") is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because it's best to not use terms that are likely to spark debate just by word choice unless you actually want to have that debate? If you're concerned with AI risk, it doesn't really matter the precise nature of your philosophy of mind as long as it allows artificial devices capable of reasoning with possibly adversarial goals.
Ah, so the AGI term users are like "ha-ha I chose a vague term, now you can't argue semantics, take that!"
Humans evolved from immaterial matter to conscious carriers of information. The real question isn't whether AGI is possible but whether humans are the fittest carrier of information for our DNA and that seems to be technology in some shape or form helped by things like deep learning. My bet is always on evolution. And now that technology can learn it's IMO only a matter of time before we will experience another Cambr…
We humans are defined by our DNA, so are we not by definition the fittest carrier for it?
Humans evolved from immaterial matter to conscious carriers of information. The real question isn't whether AGI is possible but whether humans are the fittest carrier of information for our DNA and that seems to be technology in some shape or form helped by things like deep learning. My bet is always on evolution. And now that technology can learn it's IMO only a matter of time before we will experience another Cambr…
> whether humans are the fittest carrier of information for our DNA We humans are defined by our DNA, so are we not by definition the fittest carrier for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly because other intelligences might have more ability than us to achieve their goals, and have different goals. "Intelligence does not imply goals" is the thing to keep in mind here. E.g. what if more intelligent aliens truly believed that the only purpose in the world is proving more mathematical theorems? And decided to turn all of the planet into a giant math-proving machine? Destroying all the planet, all th…
We currently have thousands, or even millions of intelligent entities (humans) which think pretty wild and dangerous things. We usually just tell them "shut up Bob and take your meds" and that's it. Sometimes we regrettably kill them. Why would such AGI have the means of turning all of the planet into anything? I mean, sure, I also think the Terminator is a decent movie, but that doesn't make it a reasonable blueprin…
Other times, Las Vegas and we shut up because we come up empty -- at best talking about gun control as if someone choking 3 people on a bus was substantially better and not still something where we come up empty.
> Why would such AGI have the means of turning all of the planet into anything?
How does getting off track with that address the main point, namely "Intelligence does not imply goals"? Are you going to prove that while that may be true, there just can't be a way for that to ever have a bad outcome because "Bob"?
> I also think the Terminator is a decent movie, but that doesn't make it a reasonable blueprint of the future.
Neither is "Bob".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly because other intelligences might have more ability than us to achieve their goals, and have different goals. "Intelligence does not imply goals" is the thing to keep in mind here. E.g. what if more intelligent aliens truly believed that the only purpose in the world is proving more mathematical theorems? And decided to turn all of the planet into a giant math-proving machine? Destroying all the planet, all th…
We currently have thousands, or even millions of intelligent entities (humans) which think pretty wild and dangerous things. We usually just tell them "shut up Bob and take your meds" and that's it. Sometimes we regrettably kill them. Why would such AGI have the means of turning all of the planet into anything? I mean, sure, I also think the Terminator is a decent movie, but that doesn't make it a reasonable blueprin…
There's also not much to fear from slightly-smarter-than humans machines.
But why would you think that's the case? Because we're the best evolution has come up with so far, here on Earth?
"Why would such AGI have the means of turning all of the planet into anything?"
An AI as much smarter than a human than a human is smarter than a dog would think of a strategy far, far smarter that what you, or I, or human civilization could come up with.