4 ms·

> Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. This state

by darawk 11y ago

> Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. This statement is a contradiction in terms. If we do not understand how something works, it is impossible to estimate how far off it is. You can only estimate the distance of discovery when it is inherently incremental, but since we really have no idea how to do general unsupervised learning, it's entirely possible that it consists of a single, brilliant algorithmic insight. Nobody could have estimated how far off the airplane was before the Wright brothers invented it, similarly with cars, or for a more recent and concrete example, a quasipolynomial time algorithm for graph isomorphism.

nradov 11y ago
The Wright brothers' achievement is a poor analogy. At the time, other inventors had been gradually inching toward powered, controlled flight for decades. All the serious players in the field knew that it was possible in principle and there were numerous predictions that someone would do it soon. The Wright brothers success was due to several incremental improvements in engine power and aerodynamics achieved through rigorous research and diligent engineering over years. They didn't have a single, brilliant insight. With general unsupervised learning we can't even clearly describe the goal we're trying to reach or define it in objective terms.
- darawk 11y ago
  Most serious people know that human-level AI is possible in principle, because it is possible in humans. The only alternative would be to posit some nonsense spiritual explanation for intelligence. There are numerous predictions that someone will do it soon (not saying I agree with them, but they exist, and are occasionally made by serious people). Incremental progress has been ongoing in AI for years as well. I can't really imagine how they could be more similar.

by darawk 11y ago

nradov 11y ago

The Wright brothers' achievement is a poor analogy. At the time, other inventors had been gradually inching toward powered, controlled flight for decades. All the serious players in the field knew that it was possible in principle and there were numerous predictions that someone would do it soon. The Wright brothers success was due to several incremental improvements in engine power and aerodynamics achieved through rigorous research and diligent engineering over years. They didn't have a single, brilliant insight. With general unsupervised learning we can't even clearly describe the goal we're trying to reach or define it in objective terms.

darawk 11y ago
Most serious people know that human-level AI is possible in principle, because it is possible in humans. The only alternative would be to posit some nonsense spiritual explanation for intelligence. There are numerous predictions that someone will do it soon (not saying I agree with them, but they exist, and are occasionally made by serious people). Incremental progress has been ongoing in AI for years as well. I can't really imagine how they could be more similar.