781–790 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have FB blocked so thanks for sharing!
I would like to block facebook but I'm on debian. Last thing I tried to block was reddit through /etc/hosts and it didn't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the way we think in terms of clear symbols and inference isn't actually how we think but a means of providing a post-hoc narrative to ourselves in a linguistic form. Edit: Which kind of explains the failure of good-old fashioned symbolic AI as it was modelling the wrong thing.
That makes a lot of sense. An internal narrator on events explaining them to the passenger, rather than the driver of said events.
[NB I worked in good-old-fashioned AI for a number of years]
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…
That's not entirely true - it's just that no games studios are willing to compromise on graphics and art for something silly like the ability to impact the game world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently "retired" to do the same, and logic here is - there is no harm in trying, if you have resources (of course, he has magnitudes more). You can get up to date in the field in under half a year of extensive reading. And many of those scientists are too busy solving more specific goals, that their labs set. I doubt there are more than 1,000 researchers in the world specifically working on AGI.
“_Specifically_ working on Artificial _General_ Intelligence” is a bit like “As a physics major I’ve decided to specialise in physics.”
Maybe a better analogy would be "specialize physical theories that work in all environments, not have to be adapted separately for the ocean, space, the atmosphere, the forest" etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? I'd say that a world that is managed by AGI with limited input from human beings is a good goal to have. If AGI could be done without the nasty parts of human psychology and they're inherently superior to genetically intact human beings why shouldn't be embrace it? I understand that it's a big assumption to make -- that a benevolent AI could be constructed. But under that assumption, why not have a benevolen…
Maybe. Yeah, human politics and justice systems leave something to be desired. But my worry was little bit beyond that. That the AIs would take all the meaningful work, discoveries and creativity away from us, leaving us just to amuse ourselves. Some people might be okay with that, but I don't think becoming pets is the best goal for the human race. If the benevolent AI ruler(s) restrained themselves to allow for hum…
With AI, it would try its best to preserve/enhance/spread itself forever. And its best might be much better than our best...
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…
I don't see any reason to be so dismissive. Scientific pursuits have an extremely steep risk profile and are systematically underfunded because nobody knows how to capture the value that comes out of them. If someone wants to chase one on their own dime, we should celebrate that contribution to society rather than dwell on the fact that the median (even 99th percentile) outcome is that the project goes nowhere and th…
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.
well, "kill" becomes moot if the code is preserved. Like "killing" another player in a multi-player game. You're not actually killing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the "field of researchers" is that most of us aren't geniuses. We're just plugging away at problems, like normal people. The opportunity for a genius is to come in, synthesize all existing information on the subject, and then come up with a novel approach to the whole thing. In some part, I think that is what Elon Musk has been able to do effectively. He comes into a field that already exists, reads…
I don't see Elon as a genius at any kind of engineering. Everything he's done there was pretty easily foreseeable as being physically possible. What he is remarkably good at is selecting daring and potentially market-changing business goals, and executing against them consistently and aggressively despite naysayers. It's easy to say that it's probably possible to land a orbital rocket first stage. But who would bet a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Very true. Newton was an alchemist first and foremost and spent the vast majority of his time practicing alchemy rather than -what today one would call- science. One has to wonder what private reasons/results a genius of his magnitude had, in order to do that. This little known fact is so embarrassing to some institutions [2], that they made up a new word "chymistry" in order to further obscure the issue and not outr…
Is there a reason to expect that someone who wanted to investigate the laws of the composition and reactivity of matter, in the late 1600s/early 1700s, would end up studying chemistry rather than alchemy? Sure, Boyle had introduced “chemistry” as an idea in 1661 (before Newton was born), but I imagine that alchemy would still be quite active in the late 1600s as an academic “field”, with many contributors already late in their careers studying it; whereas chemistry would have been just getting off the ground, without many potential collaborators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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. That's not entirely true - it's just that no games studios are willing to compromise on graphics and art for something silly like the ability to impact the game world.
I think they don't exist because it's an exceptionally difficult problem, even for games with lo-fi graphics or text only. I've found it hard to find any AI projects that generate stories or plots that are remotely compelling.
Big studio game companies push "your choices matter" as a selling point as well, but few deliver.