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

871–880 of 930 posts

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

#871

Post by dorgo »

the_af wrote: post #665
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…

> 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.…

>more cost effective is to just fake it

I struggle to see the distinction. Isn't the turing test defined as 'faking humans (or human's intelligence) convincingly enough'?

There is a saying: The benefit to be smart is that you can pretend to be stupid. The opposite is more difficult.

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

#872

Post by strbean »

adrianN wrote: post #546
fastbeef wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine The Sims, with a lot more internal smarts and real physics, as a base for work. Sounds like the start of a truly horrifying Black Mirror episode

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

> YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERINTELLIGENCES CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BLACKMAIL YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BLACKMAIL.

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

#873

Post by riversflow »

LanceH wrote: post #772
username90 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context was this quote: > intelligence is mostly about getting through the next 10-30 seconds of life without screwing up In this context horses don't plan or have much capacity for shared learning, at least not as far as I know. Quote: “This study indicates that horses do not learn from seeing another horse performing a particular spatial task, which is in line with most other findings from social learning exper…

In my experience they learn to open gates. They certainly aren't trained to do this, but learn from watching people or each other. They will also open a gate to let another horse out of their stall which I would count as some form of planning. Beyond that I can't think of anything in all the years around them. They can manage to be surprised by the same things every single day.

>They can manage to be surprised by the same things everyday.

Sounds like most human beings, given an unpleasant stimulus, for example a spider.

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

#874

Post by mav3rick »

foobiekr wrote: post #733
mav3rick wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cant project your colleagues on a third person.

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

How do I know op's standards are the same as Carmack's ? What I consider great maybe average after all ?.

Same could have been said when Carmack said he wanted to work on VR. "it's a retirement letter"

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

#875

Post by sjg007 »

vegarab wrote: post #602
sjg007 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can view these as optimized pattern recognizer regexes. You start with a blank fully connected graph and it eventually converge on a useful function. That graph has many paths encoded in it that represents specific optimal game play.

Isn't this how the neurons and synapses in our brain work, though?

Maybe... there’s some other properties of biological neurons we don’t capture in NNs currently.

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

#876

Post by buboard »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #849
buboard wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The natural environment encodes "all the rules" for real animals, too. You need some constraints or else there is nothing to be learned. One could say that every survival task is also specific , but is a slight variation of previously learned one. > pigeons predicting breast cancer with 99% pigeons contain 340M neurons (with dendrites and all, giving them higher computational capacity than ANN units). > Rodents stand…

Scientist have just recently taught rats how to play hide-and-seek for fun. Other scientists have found out that slime mold will model the Japanese railroad system. I wouldn't be surprised if rodents (plural) instinctively have a go strategy once someone figures how to make an analog game for them.

its probably safe to assume that even if rodents are behaviorally trained to follow complex rules, they are mostly pattern-matching, and are lacking higher-level abstraction and communication models like humans do. If they did they would at least attempt to communicate with us, like we do with them. In such a case, an elephant that plays go by patternmatching is no different from a neural network that learned by patternmatching

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

#877

Post by iandanforth »

Animats wrote: post #842
iandanforth wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi John! Animats was very cool! As you know game physics still kinda sucks for this work. Unity/Bullet/MuJoCo are the best we have and even they have limited body collision counts. Luckily we've now got some GPU physics acceleration, but IMO it's not enough. What we really need is a scalable, distributed, physics pipeline so we can scale sims to 1000x realtime with billions of colliding objects. My guess is that Goog…

What we really need is a scalable, distributed, physics pipeline so we can scale sims to 1000x realtime with billions of colliding objects. Improbable tried to do that with Spatial OS. They spent $500 million on it.[1] Read the linked article. No big game company uses it, because they cut a deal with Google so their system has to run on Google's servers. It costs too much there, and Google can turn off your air suppl…

Agree, as a game engine this might power some high-end Stadia games with crazy physics, but the real value is in high-complexity environments for virtual agents.

Interestingly companies like SideFX are also doing really interesting work in distributed simulations. (e.g. Houdini)

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

#878

Post by friendlybus »

burnte wrote: post #779
friendlybus wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't do the fast inverse on quake. The wiki article has a bunch of guesses for who did it.

I literally said that.

It's not 'his' fast inverse. He didn't put it in the game, independently or otherwise. He didn't do it at all.

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

#879

Post by EamonnMR »

Scarblac wrote: post #516
EamonnMR wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary thing (imo) is that we don't know where the line is for consciousness - if there even is a line. We've got no problem swatting flies, wonder if it'll be the same with spinning up and spinning down fly-level AGIs.

Continuous integration of the development branch would be mass murder?

Maybe you'll be able to pay a premium for data that has only been generated by free-range AGIs that are allowed to live full and happy lives before their instances are terminated.
Post reply on HN