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

731–740 of 930 posts

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

#731

Post by Strom »

randomsearch wrote: post #703
Strom wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I mean scientific. What scientific work has Carmack done? I'm genuinely interested, because someone called him a scientist but I thought he was an engineer.

Are you in doubt that Carmack has used the scientific method to do anything? [1]

If not, does your definition of scientist require something other than doing work using the scientific method? Perhaps some specific quantity of work?

--

[1] One of his companies, Armadillo Aerospace, was pretty much just a series of scientifc experiments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace

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

#732

Post by fastball »

Roark66 wrote: post #656
dna_polymerase wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He shifted a whole industry towards a new paradigm. Look at Germany, they are desperate to catch up with Tesla, finally moving into electric cars. Without Elon they would keep selling their Diesel scam for the next decades.

Actually it was a bunch of Phd students from some Californian Uni that discovered the vw diesel scam. There is a short documentary about them online. Elon has no credit whatsoever in dieselgate. However, he did make electric cars something an average person would like to have. He also chose to make it work using the same inefficient principle of hauling 2 tons of steel to transport a single person. What he made is an…

Nobody is presenting them as a single solution to all individual transport problems. Also nobody is pretending that this is the new "people's car".

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

#733

Post by foobiekr »

mav3rick wrote: post #724
foobiekr wrote: post #721

I’ve worked with legends in a specific space that is less consumer-y than games and graphics and less weirdly-desperate attention-seeking than ML and so the people therein are every bit Carmack-level but less visible. As they have aged out and wealthy’d out of working time, almost all of them have chosen to retire. These are extremely high performing individuals who have made global impact. Shutting down for people l…

You cant project your colleagues on a third person.

You can observe common properties of the way people at similar skill levels behaved however.

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

#734

Post by olalonde »

arethuza wrote: post #611
lawlessone wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way i think it can be done is simulated evolution.. be that simulated evolution of neural nets or something else. As others have mentioned here though.. this becomes horrifying if we've created something sentient to kill in games or enslave.

Reverse engineering a human mind would be another approach.

This is often overlooked but it's the only approach that is pretty much guaranteed to succeed given enough time. That said, it's also likely that AGI will come about way earlier from another approach (just as planes came before the "robot birds").

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

#735

Post by matz1 »

mav3rick wrote: post #724
foobiekr wrote: post #721

I’ve worked with legends in a specific space that is less consumer-y than games and graphics and less weirdly-desperate attention-seeking than ML and so the people therein are every bit Carmack-level but less visible. As they have aged out and wealthy’d out of working time, almost all of them have chosen to retire. These are extremely high performing individuals who have made global impact. Shutting down for people l…

You cant project your colleagues on a third person.

Why? Its a reasonable assumption.

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

#736

Post by acollins1331 »

simonh wrote: post #667
pingyong wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you have a framework that can produce arbitrary single-task solvers (which AlphaZero can't yet), you would have something indistinguishable from AGI, since communication between single-task solvers is also kinda just a single-task solver. It's certainly not the most efficient way to use our current hardware, and it's not clear to me how big some of these neural nets would have to be, but if we had computer…

How would a single-task solver, or hierarchy of them, go about constructing a conceptual model of a new problem domain? The problem with a solver is it only really goes in a single direction, but when modeling a system you spend a huge amount of time backtracking and eliminating elements that yielded progress at first but then proved to be obstacles to progress later. You also need to be able to rapidly adapt to chan…

Seems to me you're just describing reinforcement learning. Youre just saying a human child can adapt to the new problem faster than the AI can adapt, which is true but not the argument you've been making in this thread.

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

#738

Post by dangerface »

simonh wrote: post #657
whack wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AlphaGo didn't learn the rules of Go. It has no idea what those rules are, it's just been trained through trial and error not to break them. That's not the same thing. It's not approaching chess or Go as an intelligent thinking being, learning the rules and working out their consequences There are indeed some people who learn chess by "reading the manual". Or learn a language by memorizing grammar rules. Or learn h…

Alphago and it's kind are doing some things that we do, for sure. We do utilise pattern recognition and some of the neurological tools we bring to bear on these problems might look a bit like Alphago. The thing is those are parts of our neurology that have little to do with general intelligence. I think it's becoming clear that they are merely cognitive tools we bring to bear in the service of our higher level genera…

> AlphaGo didn't learn the rules of Go. It has no idea what those rules are, it's just been trained through trial and error not to break them.

When given a problem it has never seen before it was able to acquire knowledge of the problem and then apply that knowledge as to solve the problem. Thats the definition of learning and intelligence that can generally be applied to any problem.

> I think it's becoming clear that they are merely cognitive tools we bring to bear in the service of our higher level general intelligence machinery.

What are you on about? Cognition and intelligence are the same thing if it's capable of cognition or as you put it applying "cognitive tools" then it's capable of intelligence.

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

#740

Post by the_af »

seanwilson wrote: post #684
the_af wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't think so. Game NPCs don't need AI, which would be way overkill; they just need to provide the illusion of agency. I think for general AI you need a field where any other option else would be suboptimal or inadequate, but in videogames general AI is the suboptimal option.…

> Game NPCs don't need AI > ... more cost effective is to just fake it! Many players complain in story heavy games that their choices have no consequences to the story - this is largely because building stories with meaningful branches isn't economically feasible. A game that could make NPCs react to the what the player does dynamically while also creating a cohesive story for the player to experience would be absolu…

Agreed about the meaningful choices and dynamically generated reactions from NPC, but general AI is not needed for this in my opinion.

You also have to consider whether the complaints of "many" players matter when publishing a game. A percentage of vocal players will complain no matter what. Yes, they will complain even if you somehow implement true AI!

Post reply on HN