8 ms·
One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report
- skurilyak 10y ago"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
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe machines have clearly made a deal with the reptilians and infiltrated Stanford. :)
- threepipeproblm 10y agoWhat immediately follows is rather sobering, too: "No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future."
- ThomPete 10y agoThis is the major problem with the line of reasoning. A tiger doesn't need to be self aware or have intent to be dangerous.
- soperj 10y agoPretty sure the tiger has intent on eating something...
- ThomPete 10y agoSure but it doesn't need to be as smart as humans to hurt us and neither do AI it just needs to be everywhere. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
- the8472 10y agoAre you thinking about grey goo? The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption. So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a tiger with ease.
- ThomPete 10y agoI am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us because in order for them to be helpful they get so much power over us that their continued improvements become fundamental to our survival beyond the scope of our ability to understand it. The "system" does not need to have intent or be even closely aware to be dangerous to humans. And so the article sets up a false premise if the quoted conclusion is to be the base of judging whether it's going to be a threat to us or not.
- paavokoya 10y agoI am thinking about systems set up to protect us can end up hurting us Reminds me of post 9/11 "homeland security" measures
- zardo 10y agoWhat about corporations? They are self-sustaining non-human information processing systems with long term goals, and they are subject to selection pressure. They are rudimentary humans-in-the-loop artificial life.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoI 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 science fiction, but as competence increases shareholders - who typically are only passingly interested in moral issues - are likely to demand the increased returns an AI CEO can bring.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> 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.)
- cLeEOGPw 10y agoA person could be made a mediator of AI to overcome it.
- zardo 10y agoMany CEOs are already just trying to operate as a share price optimization algorithm. They don't choose to inject human values into their organizations.
- oldmanjay 10y agoThat you don't share their values does not make them non-human
- js8 10y agoI was thinking about a scenario where some crazy billionaire would build an autonomous AI that would operate a fleet of secretive hedge funds and financial trading companies. The AI wouldn't have any need to know what these companies - staffed by real people - are actually doing. It would just try to maximize profit and it would just kill the companies that would deviate too far from the norm, and build another companies in their place. No CEO of any of the companies would ever see this "investor" in person, everything would be sent over email, and done to the billionaire's name. The billionaire would eventually die and those companies would continue to operate completely autonomously.
- ThomPete 10y agoUnderstanding 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-Final3.gif 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 long.
- riboflava 10y agoAGI progress is unlikely to be limited by some exponential curve that we're just not far enough along though. Rather it seems more limited by some key insight no one has found yet. Sure we'll be able to retrofit some exponential curve onto it after the fact, since when it appears it will change everything drastically. But this is in contrast to e.g. the human genome project which started out with the expectation of a specific exponential curve to give an estimate for project completion. Your more general point I agree with, however, it's not enough to dismiss the report.
- maxerickson 10y agoSelf driving cars were serious research more than 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge Several vehicles finished the 2005 course. The one that finished first won a $2 million prize.
- vhold 10y agoI think it's implied throughout all their predictions only apply up to 2030, so I think that is a fairly safe bet. Giving this the headline of "One Hundred Year Study.." was confusing. That's the name of the ongoing effort to do this kind of analysis, but the paper is named "Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030"
- skurilyak 10y agoMy original headline was: "Stanford Releases 28,000-Word Report on Artificial Intelligence (AI)", but one of the admin changed it to: "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: 2016 Report"
- Houshalter 10y agoKey word "imminent". They are talking about the near term future. AI risk people are talking about risks in 30+ years or so. That said, it's typical for even experts to underestimate progress in rapidly advancing fields. No one predicted AI would be so good by now, say 5-10 years ago. Now computers are beating Go and rivaling human vision.
- teabee89 10y agoI find it surprising that they don't mention Numenta's work on Hierarchical Temporal Memory.
- cmarschner 10y agoSome reasons here: http://fastml.com/yann-lecuns-answers-from-the-reddit-ama/ http://fastml.com/yann-lecuns-answers-from-the-reddit-ama/
- ewjordan 10y ago"Ask them what error rate they get on MNIST or ImageNet" While I agree that Numenta probably doesn't have any sort of full-fledged AI, the human brain does terribly on MNIST and ImageNet compared to the state of the art. So we would fail that test. Getting stuck on toy problems like ImageNet and overoptimizing solutions that can't possibly be applied more generally (except as dumb preprocessors) is not likely to lead in the most interesting directions, even if it's incredibly useful and profitable in the meantime.
- argonaut 10y agoHumans appear to do quite well on ImageNet (anecdotally, one person got 5.1% error: http://karpathy.github.io/2014/09/02/what-i-learned-from-competing-against-a-convnet-on-imagenet/ http://karpathy.github.io/2014/09/02/what-i-learned-from-com...). Of course there are recent deep models that do better than that, but the author opines (and I agree) that an ensemble of trained human annotators would do better than the best deep models. MNIST is the true toy dataset (doesn't really tell you much about your algorithm's performance) - while there aren't any reported human evaluations of MNIST, LeCun estimates the human error rate is 0.2% - better than any deep models (admittedly without justification: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-95a.pdf http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-95a.pdf).
- drum 10y agoMeta - What's the reasoning behind labeling it a '28,000-Word report' as opposed to a page approximation? I find 28,000 words hard to conceptualize compared to pages Edit - I could have phrased this better. I definitely understand that word count is a more concrete measurement than pages, however it seemed unnecessary to include in the title because length doesn't imply quality and it was hard to conceptualize. The title of this post has since been edited to '100 year study' which I think supports my initial point.
- beambot 10y agoWhat's the significance behind # pages? Are they double-spaced; 10pt font? All I would care about is quality... not length. The latter seems like a carryover from shitty homework assignments.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Swizec 10y agoWhen I write, I get more clickthroughs on "3000-word article on X" than "Article on X". I think people use it as a proxy for depth. It's how they know "Oh, this isn't just a quick blurb or press release, this is the real thing. Someone put effort into this."
- nether 10y agoTechnical reports can have many figures that take up many pages, so wordcount works better here.
- Practicality 10y ago"On the other hand, if society approaches AI with a more open mind, the technologies emerging from the field could profoundly transform society for the better in the coming decades." It's funny reading reports like this: Society never moves as a single unit. There will be groups that hate it as pure evil and groups that treat it as a religion that will save us and solve all problems. Most people will be somewhere in between. I mean, I agree, if society all agreed it would have profound effects. But when has the whole world moved as one on any issue? What we're going to get from society is a heterogeneous response. We can plan accordingly. Sure, a majority may trend one way or another and that can speed things up or slow it down, but you will need to deal with the extremes regardless.
- Animats 10y agoIt'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 data from cameras and microphones now works well. The front end of perception is much better than it used to be. Much of this is brute-force computation applied to old algorithms. "Deep learning" is a few simple tricks on old neural nets powered by vast compute resources.
- paavokoya 10y agoI'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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent
- Animats 10y agoI 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.
- paavokoya 10y agoYeah, that's not really a software agent.. Anyone who actually did some research knew that was a centralized pyramid scheme.
- hyperpallium 10y agoYou 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 is "AI" success as a marketing term.
- nijiko 10y agoLet's take the assumption that we as humans do take precautionary steps to prevent actual Artificial Intelligence from doing harm to it's creators (us). 1. We create rules for the AI to follow, these are both morally defined, and logically defined within their codebase. 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. 3. The AI has no care for human rights and can attack, and do harm. This is a very simple, and easy to visualize case. To believe that #2 is impossible, is to play the part of the fool. On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race. Seeing us as mere ants in their intelligence they would most likely create an interconnected community and leave us altogether in their own plane of existence. I think "Her" took this approach to the artificial intelligence dialog as well. After reviewing human psychology and social group patterns that seems like the most likely situation. We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around, and we wouldn't look like much of a threat since they would have majority power. We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter. --- Outside of actual AI, the things we see today, the simplistic mathematical algorithms that determine your cars location according to the things around it, and money handling procedures, and notification alert systems will hardly harm humans and will only be there to benefit until they fail.
- Smaug123 10y ago"On a bright note, the most likely situation which I can conjure of Artificial Intelligence taking is that of a brexit from the human race… We would be less than ants in their eyes, and for most humans, ants that stay outside don't matter." For humans, ants don't matter. That's because we don't have ways to turn ants into fun. Something intelligent enough to master nanotechnology, however, has a way to turn ants into fun, and in this analogy, has no particular reason not to do it.
- stcredzero 10y ago1. 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 against potentially creating a dangerous AI. We wouldn't be able to converse fast enough for AI to want to stay around Is impatience an unavoidable epiphenomenon of intelligence? If an AI can multitask like crazy, they could just view a conversation with a particular human as an email thread. Perhaps such an AI could converse with the whole human race simultaneously?
- whage 10y agoWhere are the people like Andrew Ng: machine learning gurus from tech giants like Fb, Amazon, Google, Baidu etc... ? Shouldn't those guys be in the front line of such committee?