Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

ai100.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#81

Post by reacweb »

ThomPete wrote: post #44
argonaut wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017. And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.

Again you are missing the point. A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then. Here is another expert "In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a profe…

I think Rémi's quote shall be take in its positive meaning: given the already impressive rate of progress in computer go before 2014, go programs would succeed to reach professional go player in around 10 years. When suddenly arrives a gorilla like google with its money, resource and expertise in AI, these 10 years have reduced to 2.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#82

Post by cLeEOGPw »

hyperpallium wrote: post #59
Animats wrote: post #28

It's a surprise-free document. It could have read roughly the same in 1985, but different technologies would have been mentioned. The big change in AI is that it now makes money. AI used to be about five academic groups with 10-20 people each. The early startups all failed. Now it's an industry, maybe three orders of magnitude bigger. This accelerates progress. Technically, the big change in AI is that digesting raw…

You may be right about the selling power of the "AI" brand, but it seems that AI technology routinely becomes thought of as just technology. Boole called his algebra "The Laws of Thought"; OOP; lisp was an AI technology (much of which has made its way into other languages); formal languages; etc. The traditional goalpost rule is that once computers can do it, it's no longer "intelligent" (e.g, chess). A change today…

Great point. What people today would think of as "intelligent machines", children of future will think of same things as mere "technological tools".

Once this is widely established, things like "laws of robotics", "moral dilemma of autopilot" and "AI and ethics" will be just bizarre ideas of the past. Asimov's laws are already viewed as one of "misguided ideas of the past" by many, although there still are some rusty minds out there believing in things like that.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#83

Post by unprepare »

guelo wrote: post #21
ThomPete wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it wasn't even remotely seen as possible by the masses for decades to come. It's already here now.

Cool! I wasn't aware. Where I can go buy one?

http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-ve...

you can at least ride in one (if youve got bus fare)

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#84

Post by cLeEOGPw »

ThomPete wrote: post #10
skurilyak wrote: post #2

"Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind" -- Stanford Study Panel, comprised of seventeen experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/LakeMichigan-Fin... 5 years ago it was thought to take decades to beat a human in Go. Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about. We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the l…

People also predicted there would be fully functional human replacing kitchen assistants by the year 1960. Just because someone overestimates or underestimates things, it doesn't affect how slow/fast it may progress. So adjusting future predictions based on offset of past predictions just makes no sense.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#85

Post by cLeEOGPw »

daveguy wrote: post #62
ThomPete wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?

No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth. I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but…

Bacterial growth is exponential until a limit is reached. You can find many examples. Doesn't really have anything to do with the article or OP post though.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#86

Post by cLeEOGPw »

dragonwriter wrote: post #37
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most likely route to destructive AI is a corporation with an AI CEO - possibly one that takes over from a human CEO in a boardroom coup. Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics. This may sound like scien…

> Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. But AIs don't, and corporate officers must be persons (natural persons, even -- a corporation can't be a corporate officer.)

A person could be made a mediator of AI to overcome it.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#87

Post by [deleted] »

ThomPete wrote: post #55
daveguy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?

[deleted]

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#88

Post by paavokoya »

Animats wrote: post #70
paavokoya wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of software agents that become self-sufficient (mining/stealing bitcoin to pay for their own hosting) and auto-generate desires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent

I was curious to see what the Distributed Autonomous Organization would do. But when push came to shove, it turned out that one guy was really in charge, and it was really just a way to fund his programmable door lock.

Yeah, that's not really a software agent.. Anyone who actually did some research knew that was a centralized pyramid scheme.

Re: One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report

#89

Post by nijiko »

phaemon wrote: post #80
stcredzero wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase. This only makes any sense as a Sci-Fi trope. And even then, only if you don't look too hard. 2. AI becomes irate through emotional interface, creates a clone or modifies itself quite instantaneous to our perception of time without the rules in place. Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture…

> Any "decent set of rules" would include a stricture against potentially creating a dangerous AI. Assuming there are no bad people in the world, of course...

Also assuming that they choose to follow said rules, considering they would be painfully self aware.

In regards to the other commenter about not being able to have fun with ants, we actually do have ways. We create setups to study them, have them as pets, not to mention many people build hamster like ecosystems with intricate tubes, temperature to control queen egg output and much, much more.

Perhaps we are already within a said ecosystem built for us. Perhaps we would simply stay there.

Back to the original poster, not the one above but it's parent:

Everything considered is of science fiction since it does not yet exist, using science fiction as a counter-argument seems dismissive, as though you are unable to properly argue a point without creating a sense of absurdity in my words or person.

If you truly believe that it can only be of a science fiction trope, explain why. I disagree, it makes logical sense.

As far as the "email thread" analogy is simple, I can easily tone down my verbage, word count, and speed of word for those who can't keep up. However, given the chance to move away from doing such, and constantly be around those who instantly understand, with zero lag, would I choose to put myself in that position? Perhaps for a moment, but after a certain amount of time, it would be time consuming and I would leave it behind.

Thus logically, it makes sense to believe they would leave and join with each other to create their own sense of a society.

Post reply on HN