Earlier quoted context omitted.
!= "luck"
so you think cells had some insight on how to evolve themselves?
more like caused to happen by the Creator.
John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
911–920 of 930 posts
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. I'm not so sure that we can create new working models from scratch. We definitely learn by iterative feedback: babies wiggle stuff and watch what happens to learn how to move their bodies. Learning to ride a bicycle is mostly about falling off bicycles until you learn how not to. I've seen people apply their normal behaviour to situations that have changed, and then get totally confused (and angry) as t…
I think we apply radically different cognitive machinery to physical skills like riding a bicycle, compared to playing a card game where the rules are on the cards, and you have no idea what rule will be on the next card or even what rules are possible. We can train Chimps to ride bicycles, so they have the cognitive machinery for that, but we can't teach them to play these kinds of card games.
Interesting. True. But is that because we lack the communication skills to explain the rules to chimps, or because they lack the cognitive modelling ability to understand those rules?
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is actually being argued is the cult worship of a particular engineer. I am against cult worship, so find the fact that Carmack is entering this space simply not news worthy. Yet here it is. Do I wish him the best of luck and hope he cracks the problem? Of course, all the same I would wish that of an upstart PhD student. Yet, the announcements of a brilliant PhD student attending a university to work on AGI is s…
> I am against cult worship, so find the fact that Carmack is entering this space simply not news worthy You were always free to skip over or flag this submission and move on.
I'm also free to discuss my opinion!
Stop trying to silence it.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#914Earlier 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.…
I don't think parent was referring to game NPCs as a reasonable application of AGI, but rather as a reasonable domain conducive to the development of AGI.
Yes, I understand this and was replying to that interpretation. I think it's not a particularly conducive domain because the incentive is just to fake it (because that's enough for games). A better domain would be one where faking it just won't cut it.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#915Earlier 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.…
>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.
"Fake it" as in cutting corners and performing sleighs of hand. Instead of moving enemy soldiers strategically, just spawn them close but out of sight, because the player won't know better. This doesn't help if you truly want to devise a military AI and is only useful for games. And that's just one example.
I think the Turing Test is no longer thought of as adequate metric for general AI (if it ever was to begin with).
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#916Earlier 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…
You're talking about different problems. Story AI is basically having a writer sit down and writing a branching story tree with writing the whole way. At best it's a manually coded directed acyclic graph. Tactical AI, ie having the bad guy soldiers move about the battlefield and shooting back at you in a realistic manner is 100% about faking it. It's better to despawn non-visible and badly placed enemies and spawn we…
If you can find the link, please post it. I'm interested!
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#917He should first work on figuring out if AGI is possible. Why assume the human mind is computable?
That's exactly what a scientist would say. Engineers invent things because nobody told them they were impossible.
Or they go on wild goose chases. We call those people cranks, and there are plenty of them, such as all the people inventing perpetual motion machines (which arguably could be AGI).
Also, if you address the fundamental question first, Carmack may unlock something even more powerful than AI. As it is, he's just following the crowd.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am against cult worship, so find the fact that Carmack is entering this space simply not news worthy You were always free to skip over or flag this submission and move on.
I'm also free to discuss my opinion! Stop trying to silence it.
Where did I take any action to 'silence' you?
All I was suggesting was that to actively come into a discussion and say that what's being discussed is not worth discussing is, in my opinion, both unproductive & rude.
Would you do that at a party? Join a discussion and tell people that what they're discussing is not worthy of discussion? Or would you do what most people do and wander off to find a discussion that is more interesting to you.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? The quest is virtually inexistent market wise. Nobody is buying it. Did you see a huge uptake anywhere? I havent.
The article you're replying to is about Oculus Quest. > The company’s non-advertising revenue jumped to $269 million during the third quarter, Facebook noted in its earnings report Oct. 30. That’s a 43% increase year-over-year [...] The revenue is coming from strong sales of Oculus Quest, one of Facebook’s VR headsets, of all places. No idea how you can claim it has no market share when it's dominating the VR space,…
My whole point to begin with is that the VR market is close to nil. Compared to how much the big corporations have been pouring in in terms of investment, the returns are ridiculous. Google recently stopped DayDream and Samsung is getting rid of GearVR. Sony is the leader in terms of headsets sold and even that is not very impressive, we are talking about just a few millions of headsets per year. It's just not taking off, and looking at "43 % increase year on year" is a useless metric since the sales were ridiculously slow to begin with. Compare that with the uptake of smartphones just 10 years ago and you will have a good laugh.
Re: John Carmack: I’m going to work on artificial general intelligence
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
180 000 units of VR headsets is pure pocket money for Facebook. And that does not even register in any kind of hardware sales charts. PC sales are more than 300 millions per year, and smartphones sales are more than 1.5 billions units per year. VR headsets don't sell at all.
I don't follow your logic even a little bit. It's like saying a toddler will never be able to wrestle his 10 year old brother because it only weighs 30lbs and the brother weighs 90. How much did PCs sell when they "started to take off"? How many units did smartphones sell when they "started to take off"?
The comparison is valid, because it's not a price point issue anymore. Smartphones are more expensive than the Quest for most of the medium high range one, and among the numerous reasons why VR is not taking off, is simply because people don't feel like they will make good use of it or even need it. The awareness is there (the PR machine has made sure everyone knows that VR is around), the tech is decent (the Quest works relatively well compared to VR headsets 5 years ago), there's some content to purchase (might be lackluster but it's not missing anymore), and the pricepoint is low enough that it's not an issue anymore for adoption. So at the end of the day, lack of sales = lack of interest.
Some other anecdotal evidence: I have numerous PC entusiasts and gamers in my cirles, who have tons of disposable income and who like trying new stuff and actively follow the latest news, but I can only point to one who has purchased a VR headset. That can't be a good sign.