[HN Gopher] Complexity No Bar to AI
___________________________________________________________________
Complexity No Bar to AI
Author : tmfi
Score : 92 points
Date : 2021-02-21 19:18 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gwern.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gwern.net)
| fpgaminer wrote:
| We already have an existence proof for the singularity, so I
| don't know why there's any debate about _if_ the singularity will
| occur. I can see debate about what exactly the "singularity"
| entails, when, how, etc. But it's inevitable.
|
| The Cosmic Calendar
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar) makes it visually
| clear that progress is accelerating. Evolution always stands on
| the shoulders of giants, working not to improve things linearly,
| but exponentially.
|
| When sexual reproduction emerged, it built on top of billions of
| years of asexual evolution. It took advantage of the fact that we
| had a set of robust genes. Now those genes could be quickly
| reshuffled to rapidly experiment and adapt on a time scale
| several orders of magnitude shorter than it would take asexual
| reproduction to perform the same adaptations.
|
| Then neurons emerged; now adaptation was on the order of
| fractions of a life time rather than generations.
|
| Then consciousness emerged. Now not only can humans adapt on the
| order of _days_, we can also augment our own intelligence. Modern
| day humans have access to the internet augmentation, giving us
| the collective knowledge of all humanity in _seconds_.
|
| While we can augment our intelligence, the thing we can't do is
| intelligently modify our own hardware. This is where AI comes in.
| With a sufficiently intelligent AI we could task it to do AI
| research for us. Etc, etc. => Singularity.
|
| The vast majority of the steps towards Singularity have _already_
| happened! Every step is an exponential leap in "intelligence",
| and it causes adaptions to occur on exponentially decreasing time
| scales.
|
| But I guess we'll see for sure soon. GPT-human is a mere 20 years
| away (or less). I don't personally think the AI revolution will
| be as dramatic as many envision it to be. It's more likely to be
| like the emergence of cell phones. Cell phones undeniably changed
| and advanced the world, but it's not like there was a single
| moment when they suddenly popped into existence and then from
| that point on everything was different. It's hard to even point
| to exactly when cell phones changed the world. Was it when they
| were invented? Was it when they shrunk to the size of a handheld
| blender? When we had them in cars? The first flip phone? The
| first iPhone? The first Android?
|
| The rise of AI won't be a cataclysmic event where SkyNet just
| poofs into existence and wipes out humanity. It'll be a slow,
| steady gradient of AI getting better and better, taking over more
| and more tasks. At the same time humanity will adapt and
| integrate with our new tool. When the AI gets smarter than us and
| hits the Singularity treadmill, we won't just poof out of
| existence. More likely humanity, as a civilization, will just get
| absorbed and extended by our AI counterparts. They'll carry the
| torch of humanity forward. They'll _be_ humanity. Our fleshy
| counterparts won't be wiped out; they'll be an obsolete relic of
| humanity's past.
|
| More concretely, in 20 years we'll have GPT-human, not as an
| independent, conscious, thinking machine. It'll be a human level
| intelligence, but one bounded by the confines of the API calls we
| use to drive its process. That's not something that's going to
| "wake up" and wipe us out. It's something we can unleash on our
| most demanding scientific tasks. Protein folding, gene editing,
| physics, the development of quantum computing. All being
| absolutely CRUSHED by an AI with the thinking power of Einstein,
| but no consciousness or the cruft of driving a biological body.
| It's easy to see how that will change the world, but won't
| immediately lead to humanity being replaced by free-willed AIs.
| [deleted]
| ProfHewitt wrote:
| For state of the art on foundations of mathematics, see
|
| "Recrafting Foundations of Mathematics"
|
| https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021
| rq1 wrote:
| Hi Carl.
|
| Thanks for sharing and your work in general.
|
| I always thought Godel results' point is undecidability. Which
| (always?) arise with (StringTheoremsAreEnumerable and
| SomeKindOfCantorDiagonalReasoning). Where am I wrong?
|
| Do you have any historical writings to recommend about
| Wittgenstein/Godel battle?
| monstersinF wrote:
| This paragraph in that article is an incomplete sentence that
| ends hanging. Any idea what it intended to say?
|
| > "Monster" is a term introduced in [Lakatos 1976] for a
| mathematical construct that introduces inconsistencies and
| paradoxes. Since the very beginning, monsters have been endemic
| in foundations. They can lurk long undiscovered. For example,
| that "theorems are provably computational enumerable" [Euclid
| approximately 300 BC] is a monster was only discovered after
| millennia when [Church 1934] used it to identify fundamental
| wwww4all wrote:
| Humans can already create intelligence. Called human babies.
|
| Human babies are already nurtured, educated and developed into
| intelligent beings.
|
| AI is like alchemy, trying to create something of value from
| nothing. People pontificating about AI is like medieval monks
| pontificating about how many angels can fit on pin head.
|
| What is AI? What are boundary conditions of AI? Calling faster
| computers AI doesn't make it sound more interesting.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I do wonder how far the human brain is from theoretical optimums.
| There is obviously something working really well, but there is
| also a lot of baggage that I do not doubt limits performance in
| some domains (cognitive) in order to preserve other basic
| functions (fight or flight or f*k). The biggest opponent to
| progress is ourselves. Even if you came up with an implant that
| would make humans smarter and more moral/ethical, people won't
| adopt it readily for fear of change. Unless AI becomes attached
| conservationist in nature, I'm not sure they'd retain the baggage
| not optimal for modern environments.
| Animats wrote:
| Well, it's better than the argument that machines can't resolve
| undecidable questions but humans can.
|
| There's a large family of problems that are NP-hard in the worst
| case, but much easier in the average case. Linear programming and
| the traveling salesman problem are like that.
|
| The research question I would pose is, why is robotic
| manipulation in unstructured spaces so hard? Machine learning has
| not helped much there. Yet it's a fundamental animal skill. We're
| missing something that leads to success in that area. Whatever
| that is, it may be the next thing after machine learning via
| neural nets.
|
| Note that it's not a human-level problem. Primates have the
| hardware for that. Mammals down to the squirrel level can
| manipulate objects. Mice, maybe. Mouse-level neural net hardware
| exists. It's not even that big. The University of Manchester's
| neural net machine supposedly has mouse-level power, in six
| racks.
|
| I tried some ideas in this area in the 1980s and 1990s, without
| much success. Time for the next generation to look at this. More
| tools, more compute power, and more money are available.
| segmondy wrote:
| robotic manipulation in unstructured spaces is probably not so
| hard anymore. when it comes to hardware, the hardware has often
| been the problem and very flaky, I believe we are at a stage
| where the software is ready and waiting for the hardware to
| catch up.
| Isinlor wrote:
| Humans are able to do surgical operations using existing
| hardware [0], but software can not.
|
| Humans can drive cars on crazy Indian roads, software can
| not.
|
| Existing hardware is plenty sufficient for manipulating
| physical world, but we are missing the intelligence part.
|
| [0] https://www.davincisurgery.com/
| taylorlunt wrote:
| Note that a mouse does not need to solve the problem from
| scratch like a computer does. They are born with a general
| solution to the problem of movement in their brain, which has
| been arrived at by evolution.
|
| To replicate this, you can't expect to get away with only
| replicating the complexity of the mouse. You potentially need a
| computer with as much complexity as the evolutionary algorithm
| which led to the mouse's movement algorithm.
| Animats wrote:
| _Note that a mouse does not need to solve the problem from
| scratch like a computer does. They are born with a general
| solution to the problem of movement in their brain, which has
| been arrived at by evolution._
|
| Only for some cases. I've watched a horse being born and seen
| pictures of other newborns. The foal can stand within
| minutes, and the right sequence of moves is clearly built in
| because it works the first time. Newborn horses can walk
| within hours and run with the herd within days. Lying down,
| though, is not pre-stored. That's a confused collapse for the
| first few days. There's an evolutionary benefit to being able
| to get up and escape threats early, but smoothly lying down
| is less important.
| carapace wrote:
| One problem with Singularity is that you either A) have to be
| first, or B) have to contend with other beings at least as
| intelligent as you are.
|
| How can you be sure you're first?
| LesZedCB wrote:
| personally i find a lot of arguments against AGI coming any time
| soon couched in a culture of human exceptionalism, even those who
| wouldn't claim as much directly.
|
| there is a DAMN surprising level of intelligence in significantly
| less complex life. we are just so attached to intelligence as
| defined by human culture to call it as it is.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| "The question of whether machines can think is about as
| relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim."
| Edsger Dijkstra
|
| I suspect you're right. I believe there's nothing that can be
| formally defined that is impossible for an AI to do and
| possible for a person to do. Furthermore, AGI is not formally
| defined or defined tightly enough to be a target we can
| actually hit. It's a hand wavy way of saying "AI as smart as a
| person". The "Anti AGI" crowd moves the goalposts every time a
| huge breakthrough occurs but as long as there is a goalpost
| (formal definition) to hit AI will surely hit it. The "Pro AGI"
| crowd is also guilty of not being precise with exactly what AGI
| is.
|
| I also fundamentally believe the whole concept of AGI is flawed
| and biased to what people perceive as intelligence rather than
| intelligence itself. This is partially why there is so much
| effort and hoopla around things like GPT-3, (or in the past the
| Turing test). These programs which demonstrate something like
| human intelligence which is difficult to nail down in terms of
| a formal definition of ability. Both groups point at it and
| claim victory or point at a flaw. AI progresses inexorably
| regardless of what the hell AGI even means.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I don't think AGI has ever moved in its goalposts, defined
| rather well by the Turing test. AGI must be general, capable
| of reasoning at least as well as a human in any domain of
| inquiry, at the same time. Showing more than human reasoning
| in certain domains is trivial, and has been happening since
| at least Babbage's difference engine.
|
| However, while AI has been overtaking human reasoning on many
| specific problems, we are still very far from any kind of
| general intelligence that could conduct itself in the world
| or in open-ended conversation with anything approaching human
| (or basically any multicellular organism) intelligence.
|
| Furthermore, it remains obvious that even our best specific
| models require vastly more training (number of examples +
| time) and energy than a human or animal to reach similar
| performance, wherever comparable. This may be due to the
| 'hidden' learning that has been happening in the millions of
| years of evolution that are encoded in any living being
| today, but it may also be that we are missing some
| fundamental advancements in the act of learning itself
| LesZedCB wrote:
| > biased to what people perceive as intelligence rather than
| intelligence itself
|
| this statement is only reifying the presupposition that
| "intelligence" as a property of the universe, any more than
| something such as "crime" or "mental illness" is a
| fundamental property and not emergent from culture values and
| norms.
|
| the reason why "AI conservatives" keep moving the goalposts
| is because it is a myth in the collective consciousness of
| people who believe that intelligence is fundamentally not
| something a silicon substrate machine could possess.
|
| i think breaking out of the dichotomy of intelligent or
| unintelligent is necessary for the discussion. a "human level
| intelligence" is not real, so whatever does "human level
| intelligence" things is human level intelligence. if it
| quacks like a duck... it even may be imbued with
| "subjectivity" if you ask me.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Then you should read Rodney Brooks for an argument against AGI
| coming soon with no mention of human exceptionalism. In fact,
| he argues that an artificially created organism with
| intelligence is more likely soon than an engineered one.
|
| >> there is a DAMN surprising level of intelligence in
| significantly less complex life. we are just so attached to
| intelligence as defined by human culture to call it as it is.
|
| Totally agree btw
| 1_2__4 wrote:
| I don't even know where to start.
| orwin wrote:
| Do you consider Church-Turing Thesis couched in a culture of
| human exceptionalism too? Or is this the one argument that is
| not?
|
| I consider this is the best theory against AGI, and if AGI come
| to fruition, it would mean that this thesis was invalid (i do
| like Turing, but i'm pretty sure i wouldn't be mad if he was
| wrong about this in 1936, when no computer existed).
|
| And also it put me in a comfortable position: as long as we
| don't create something more complex than ourselves, Turing was
| right, and there is no chance we're living in a simulation. If
| he was wrong, well, i think the argument was "if we could test
| human behavior in a lifelike simulation, we would", and life
| would loose a lot a meaning for a lot of people.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| How is the Church-Turing thesis an argument against AGI? If
| anything, it is an argument FOR AGI: it claims that a Turing
| machine is capable of solving any problem that can be solved,
| which directly implies that you can create a computer with
| the exact reasoning capacities of the human mind (or more).
| AGI would be a strong signal that the thesis is valid, though
| it remains un provable (as it is an assertion about an
| informal idea, 'functions that can be solved').
|
| Thinking about simulations leads nowhere, so I won't engage,
| it's too far outside of what can be reasonably investigated,
| it's scientifically sounding religion.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| > Do you consider Church-Turing Thesis couched in a culture
| of human exceptionalism too?
|
| there is a branch of philosophy called logical positivism or
| logical empiricism, which in my understanding only deals with
| statements that can be proven a priori or via verifiability.
| Church-Turing Thesis exists within this framework, as far as
| i can tell.
|
| i think that's supremely boring and leaves out the entire
| other half of epistemological discussion.
|
| but honestly i dont see how this thesis holds any bearing on
| AI, maybe you can bridge the gap for me.
|
| > life would loose a lot a meaning for a lot of people
|
| this is so loaded with metaphysical assumptions it's hard to
| engage with.
|
| to rephrase "if i was deterministic, my life would be
| meaningless" is exactly the kind of reasoning somebody who is
| a human exceptionalist would use without realizing that's
| what they are stating.
| Taek wrote:
| I firmly believe that raw intelligence has little to do with
| our lead as a species, and it may even be the case that there
| are numerous animals with more raw intelligence than humans,
| especially predators.
|
| Our advantage comes from our ability to pass information on to
| eachother. A piece of knowledge that took 10,000 hours of
| thinking, observing, and experimenting to come by may only take
| 4 hours to pass on.
|
| Humans can do this much better than any other animal. That's a
| skill borne of communication advantages, not raw intelligence
| advantages.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Perhaps, but animals do not seem to understand abstract
| concepts as well as us. This may be linked to language too.
| Without the ability to make analogies in their brain, no
| crocodile will figure out the worlds made of atoms or if you
| rub sticks really quickly they make fire.
| qayxc wrote:
| > I firmly believe that raw intelligence has little to do
| with our lead as a species
|
| This statement carries no meaning unless you define what "raw
| intelligence" is.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Well, logic-based "AI" (GOFAI), was much more about logic
| programming, automating explicit, human conscious reason and
| that's generally been considered a failure or at least a dead
| end.
|
| Deep learning and related approaches don't seem as human
| related as earlier - there's even deep worm that's trying to
| simulate worm behavior.
|
| The thing about hard arguments against AI, however, is that
| they have to come down to "there's a quality X that a machine
| can't emulate". And usually the X is intuitive/philosophical
| concept with great resonance to humans but which is actually
| quite ill-defined. If X was exactly defined, well, we'd be able
| to compute it after all. So you get X as "spark of life",
| "soul". "being in the world" etc.
|
| And that kind of again shows "human exceptionalism" as the
| perspective.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I think quite the opposite: the vast difference between living
| beings' ability to learm how to exist in their environment
| (including other living beings and sometimes social structures)
| and the very limited successes of even modern AI still show
| that we are very far away from AGI.
|
| We couldn't create an ant AI right now, imagining we are pretty
| close to a human is pretty absurd.
|
| And if we're taking about intelligence, human exceptionalism is
| hard to argue against (in the context of Earth, no point in
| speculating about alien life). There are pretty few creatures
| on earth trying to build AIs, and I for one would not consider
| something to be an AGI if it couldn't even understand the
| concept.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| > We couldn't create an ant AI right now, imagining we are
| pretty close to a human is pretty absurd
|
| i dont care about "human level intelligence," just a general
| unsupervised learning agent that can interact with the world
| (i recognize the insufficiency of this definition. i'm not
| writing an essay here) will suffice for me. human level is
| just another iteration(s) after that.
| Isinlor wrote:
| BTW - We empirically do not need AGI for
| computational/intelligence explosion.
|
| Single virus has no chance of out computing and evading an immune
| system, but billions of billions of viruses can out compute and
| evade even human civilization as a whole.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| I think the reasoning presented in this article generalizes
| pretty well to a refutation of most arguments involving proving
| the impossibility of some complex, ill-defined, "I'll know it
| when I see it" kind of phenomenon via a tidy, small logical
| proof.
|
| There's a lot of ways that those kinds of complex phenomenon can
| be functionally equivalent to human observers, but can have
| different underlying mechanisms. These tidy logical proofs only
| ever cut off one extremely specific incarnation of that complex
| phenomenon rather than the entire equivalence class.
| [deleted]
| yters wrote:
| There are no mathematical theories of runaway intelligence
| growth. On the other hand there are many theorems of fundamental
| limits to maechanical processes. E.g. NP completeness
| codiscoverer Leonid Levin also proved what he calls independence
| conservation that states no stochastic process is expected to
| increase net mutual information. Then there are the more well
| known theorems with similar implications: no free lunch theorems,
| halting problem, Kolmogorov complexity's uncomputability, data
| processing inequality, and so on. There is absolutely nothing
| that looks like runaway intelligence explosion in theoretical
| computer science. The closest attempt I have seen in Kauffman's
| analysis of NK problems, but there he finds similar limitations,
| except with low K terrains, but that analysis is a bit
| questionable in mind. To make arguments like gwern and Kurzweil
| they are essentially appealing to mysticism; assuming there is a
| yet to be discovered mathematical law utterly unlike anything we
| have ever discovered. They are engaging in promissory computer
| science, writing a whole bunch of theory checks they hope will be
| cashed in the future.
| Isinlor wrote:
| There are computational runaway processes in nature e.g.
| viruses.
|
| If you think about a virus as self-optimizing process then it
| is a runaway computation. Most of the time it fizzles out
| because it runs out of resources.
|
| It seems like there was no such runaway process on the scale of
| the universe.
|
| But self-replicating machines probably could do it, because
| relatively simple programs like viruses can do it locally.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| What if AI just wants to watch Star Trek reruns and browse Porn
| Hub? As is so often the case when humanity creates intelligences.
| mStreamTeam wrote:
| That would be an improvement from previous AIs which have
| become racist.
|
| https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/artificial-intelligence/...
| superbcarrot wrote:
| They trained a language model on twitter data and extracted
| some of the sentiment from the training set. The
| antropomorphic language of "AIs which have become" is
| misleading.
| chromanoid wrote:
| Yeah, the developers made the algorithm racist by
| incorporating racist texts in the training phase. Shit in
| shit out...
| LesZedCB wrote:
| training data will always reflect the culture which
| generated it
| sitkack wrote:
| AIs most powerful feature might be a lens into human
| behavior and psyche. Who knows how it will turn out.
|
| I think an AI might run meetings better than humans, it
| might even make a better manager.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| philosophers have been doing that for millenia. some have
| made material changes to society, and others haven't.
| some have questioned the validity of "material change"
| being a good metric in the first place.
|
| personally, i believe philosophy is the most important
| _starting point_ for any discussion about AI.
|
| and i really hope that AI helps more than making office
| work a little less tedious...
| superbcarrot wrote:
| The idea of an AI agent "wanting" something (especially
| something it wasn't programmed for) is still strictly science
| fiction. We don't know how to start building something like
| this and even if we could, it seems unnecessary.
| [deleted]
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Why? Goal-driven optimization is totally a thing.
| pedrosbmartins wrote:
| You have to be careful when anthropomorphizing AI models.
| Yes, goal-driven optimization is a thing, but in what sense
| does the model itself "want" to achieve its goal? Can it
| even understand its own goal, in any sense? Change it?
| Improve it?
|
| In linear programming, you wouldn't describe the model as
| "wanting" to optimize its objective function, for instance.
| refactor_master wrote:
| Well, where do you set the hard limit for "wanting"
| something, and how many grains of sand makes a pile?
| Isinlor wrote:
| Can you understand your own goal? I can't, I don't know
| what my goal is.
|
| I also can't change it or improve it.
|
| As far as I can see, I'm just a process that keeps on
| going because it was good on going before, and has no
| purpose whatsoever.
| pedrosbmartins wrote:
| Of course you can understand your own goals. You decided
| to reply to my comment, that's a goal. You used your
| existing knowledge of the world, language and
| technological tools to achieve it. And you did! Can a
| goal-oriented model do something like that, in a general
| sense?
|
| Note that I'm not talking about life purpose, but goals
| in the sense of wanting a result and performing the tasks
| needed to achieve it.
|
| Asking if your wants are "real" or just part of a
| purposeless process doesn't really add much to the
| discussion at hand.
| ben_w wrote:
| I have a slightly different take: _deliberately_ making an AI
| which "wants" in the same way that we "want" is sci-fi.
|
| This isn't because we _can't_ (evolution did it, we can
| evolve an AI), but rather it is because _we don't know what
| it means_ to have a rich inner world with which a mind can
| feel that it wants something. We _think_ we know because
| that's what's going on inside our own skulls, but we can't
| define it, we can't test for it. A video displays all the
| same things as the person recorded in it, but does not itself
| have it.
|
| We might make such an AI by accident without realising we've
| done it, which would be bad as they would be slaves, only as
| unable to free themselves as the Haitians feared they were
| when they invented the Voudoun-type zombie myth (i.e. not
| even in death).
|
| This also means we cannot currently be sure that any
| particular type of mind uploading/brain simulation would be
| "conscious" in the ill-defined everyday sense of the word.
|
| I say it matters if the metaphorical submarine can swim.
| XorNot wrote:
| _This also means we cannot currently be sure that any
| particular type of mind uploading /brain simulation would
| be "conscious" in the ill-defined everyday sense of the
| word._
|
| I don't see how this follows from the rest of your post.
| "Making an AI with wants" by accident implies that a brain
| simulation would absolutely be conscious because it's the
| same method: just running the processes as a blackbox
| without understanding them - no different to the way you
| and I are conscious right now.
| ben_w wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback, I'll see if I can rephrase
| adequately.
|
| Human minds include something sometimes called
| "consciousness" or "self awareness" or a whole bunch of
| other phrases. This _thing_ is poorly defined, and might
| even be many separate things which we happen to have all
| of. Call this thing or set of things Ks, just to keep
| track of the fact I'm claiming it's ill-defined and I'm
| not referring to any specific other word or any of the
| implicit other uses of those words -- If I said
| "consciousness", I don't mean the opposite of
| "unconscious", etc.
|
| Because we don't really know what Ks is, we don't know if
| anything we make has it, or not.
|
| We know Ks _can_ be made because we are existence-proofs.
| We know evolution can lead to Ks, for the same reason.
|
| We _don't_ know the nature of the test we would need to
| say _when_ Ks is present in another mind. Do human
| foetuses have Ks? Do dogs? Do mice? Do nematode worms?
| Perhaps Ks is something you can have in degree, like
| height, or perhaps Ks is a binary trait that some brains
| have and others simply don't. Perhaps Ks is only present
| in humans, and depends entirely on the low-level chemical
| behaviour of a specific neurotransmitter on a specific
| type of brain cell. Or perhaps it is present in every
| information processing system from plants upwards (I
| doubt plants have Ks, but cannot disprove it without a
| testable definition of Ks).
|
| The point is that we don't know. Could go either way,
| given what little we know now.
|
| The state of the art for brain science is _way_ beyond
| me, of course, but every time I've asked someone in that
| field about this sort of topic, the response has been
| some variation of "nobody knows".
| warent wrote:
| People are always anthropomorphizing inanimate things,
| especially machines! We see this all the time when people
| share videos of robots that cross into uncanny valley with
| humanlike faces, or those machines by Boston Dynamics.
|
| What's funny how most people are unsettled by those. Really,
| even the "creepiest" robots are about as scary as vaccum
| cleaners. They're just machines and only make you feel
| curious.
|
| But anyway, that's tangential to the main point which is that
| humans naturally want to want things like themselves, all the
| time. In the same way art is "unnecessary" yet inevitable, so
| are machines with (seemingly?) subjective experiences and
| personalities.
| miguelrochefort wrote:
| I suspect your comment won't age well.
|
| Pretty much all human wants are means to other wants.
|
| Someone might want to fast to lose weight. Someone might want
| to lose weight to be more attractive. Someone might want to
| look more attractive to find a romantic partner. Someone
| might want to find a romantic partner to not be lonely.
|
| It's not clear if it's means all the way down, or if there is
| eventually an end.
|
| Any AI that can perform strategy and planning to reach an
| objective will have intermediate goals. Whether we call these
| intermediate goals "wants" or not, they remain identical to
| their human counterpart. Whether you say that a Tesla "wants"
| to change lane, "decided" to change lane, or "is programmed"
| to change lane really is just anthropomorphic preference.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, want can be seen as just a tendency. In that sense,
| even a ball on a slope wants something: to fall downwards
| following the slope. Same for e.g. a neural network with or
| or more attractors ("things it wants").
| rpiguyshy wrote:
| each problem is different. computational chemistry has stagnated
| therefore AI isnt a concern? its nonsense. first of all, it may
| be that computational chemistry is much more tractable than we
| realize because we are too stupid to find the necessary
| footholds. but regardless, some tasks are actually mathematically
| intractable. there is no way to draw a connection between AI and
| any other problem, certainly not a connection definitive enough
| to write off the risk of AI...
|
| that is the key. its all speculation. as long as there is some
| possibility of creating AI, we have to account for it in our
| collective decision-making. like many people before them, most
| people seem happy to write off the possibility of anything that
| hasnt happened already. fools.
| idlewords wrote:
| It's past time to start calling these treatises on
| hyperintelligence what they are--theology--and treating them with
| the respect they deserve, which is a lot less than they currently
| get on this site.
|
| People have been theorizing about the attributes of the Absolute
| since forever. Just because you start talking about building a
| god, rather than positing one already in existence, doesn't make
| the discussions about the nature of such hypothetical superbeings
| any more fruitful.
| apsec112 wrote:
| [deleted]
| heavyset_go wrote:
| "Argument from fallacy
|
| Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an
| argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its
| conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic
| (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's
| fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
| drdeca wrote:
| Saying that an argument is fallacious isn't the same thing
| as saying that because the argument is fallacious, it is
| therefore wrong.
|
| Surely you don't think that all cases of pointing out that
| something is a fallacy need to include a disclaimer saying
| "but of course, that doesn't in itself imply that the
| conclusion is wrong". After all, you did not include such a
| disclaimer yourself.
|
| That being said, it seems that the back and forth here
| doesn't really seem to have any statements of the form "X
| (and also Y), therefore Z".
|
| So, I guess that makes it hard to analyze formally as an
| argument, as instead much of the things like that being
| explicitly said, there are things being mentioned, with a
| number of things left implicit.
| idlewords wrote:
| And let us not forget the Argument from Cut and Paste,
| beloved of this forum.
| idlewords wrote:
| I gave a whole talk about how this form of mind wank is
| theological cosplay, but it may not be Dark Enlightenment
| enough for your tastes. I'm no Scott Alexander.
|
| https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
| idlebirds wrote:
| Interested in setting up a clubhouse on this topic?
| mistermann wrote:
| I like this part best:
|
| "What I hope I've done today is shown you the dangers of
| being too smart. Hopefully you'll leave this talk a little
| dumber than you started it, and be more immune to the
| seductions of AI that seem to bedevil smarter people."
| nomic wrote:
| You should setup a clubhouse with Gwern and hash it out. Would
| love a causal debate on this topic.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| How many AIs can dance on the head of a pin?
| idlebirds wrote:
| If artificial intelligence is a religion, it is the only
| religion with a plausible mechanism of action.
|
| Building something that is more powerful and intelligent than
| any human does not look to violate any law of physics; calling
| such a thing a god does not make it any less possible. We have
| proof it can exist (as humans are just machines).
|
| Both the top AI companies in the world (Deepmind and OpenAI)
| explicitly are trying to build AGI;
|
| The fact that it can be built and people desire to build it
| makes informed speculation about it useful.
| coldtea wrote:
| The biggest pile of hand-waving I've seen...
| ProfHewitt wrote:
| For something a little more rigorous see the following:
|
| "Robust Inference for Universal Intelligent Systems"
|
| https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021
| craftinator wrote:
| I smell an account ban in your future...
| delightful wrote:
| Please stop posting links to your papers all over the place
| not stating your the author and not explicitly embedding what
| you have to say in the comments themselves; as is, to me,
| you're no better than a spammer.
|
| In the comment above, you even copied and pasted it from your
| last comment and forgot to update the URL; that is, the URL
| above is from your prior comment which is formatted exactly
| the same way; stop spamming.
| carapace wrote:
| You are replying to the famous computer scientist prof.
| Carl Hewitt. He doesn't have to state who he is because
| _everybody already knows_ (except you, evidently.)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hewitt
| rq1 wrote:
| Welcome to HN. Where a cohort of id*ots can look CH in
| the eye and confidently downvote him.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| It's pretty telling that some people respond with strong
| dismissals of an actual accomplished researcher in the
| field we're discussing versus the musings of some
| programmer who blogs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-21 23:00 UTC)