5 ms·

Understanding robotics does not mean you understand exponential growth, it's very very hard to understand even for those who believe they do. http://assets.mot

Understanding 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 ago
AGI 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 ago
Self 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.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Yes but it wasn't even remotely seen as possible by the masses for decades to come. It's already here now.
  - guelo 10y ago
    Cool! I wasn't aware. Where I can go buy one?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-driving-taxis-get-a-test-drive-in-singapore/#181db7f21b63 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-dri...
      - daveguy 10y ago
        That's a link to an about a company who is testing autonomous taxis. You could also link to Google's self driving car tests. Neither are ready for sale to the general public.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        Thats not the point and think you know it.
      - guelo 10y ago
        "It’s not that the cars are fully driverless, either"
    - chclau 10y ago
      Are you aware that in Singapur, driver less cabs are already in service? And that many of the biggies have plans for autonomous cars within a few years?
    - unprepare 10y ago
      http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-vehicles-finland-helsinki-transportation http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-ve... you can at least ride in one (if youve got bus fare)
Animats 10y ago
"Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about." That changed on the second day of the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Suddenly, there were lots of self-driving cars running around. The sudden change in the attitude of the reporters there was remarkable.
argonaut 10y ago
"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go
- Inlinked 10y ago
  And for the self-driving cars: http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html
- ThomPete 10y ago
  You are missing the point completely. Of course there were people who believed that Go would be able to beat humans. Just as today there are people who believe that AI can be a treat. But it wasn't a majority of people who believed Go would be able just as it isn't a majority who believes AI can be a threat. I.e. just because the majority believe something doesn't mean it will be so (or vice versa)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - argonaut 10y ago
    You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017. And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Again you are missing the point. A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then. Here is another expert "In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a professional Go player. (To his credit, he also said he didn’t like making predictions.)" http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/ You also find highly prominent expert opinions that AI is going to be dangerous and experts who don't believe it. Most people don't believe it, most people believe robots wont take jobs either. And no I don't need to provide you with anything since you have only problem my point that most people didn't believe it would happen which is why you didn't link to anything saying that most believed it would happen.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the long. You can't overestimate the economic pressures on progress as well. Remember in 2007 when everybody thumbed their noses at hybrid and electric vehicles in the US? Ford was still pumping out record numbers of their behemoth Excursion model. Then the economy crashed, and people suddenly needed a fuel efficient car and then they all traded in their SUV's for what? Toyota Prius' which were an after thought a few years prior - in the span of 18 months, Toyota couldn't keep them on the lot. I can see one or more catastrophic disasters where there is a sudden need for AI to rescue the human race in some capacity. Think nuclear war, environmental disaster, biological catastrophe, etc.
daveguy 10y ago
Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?
  - daveguy 10y ago
    No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth. I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but you eventually reach a barrier in what's insured and it is a relatively small exponent. Also, is it still savings if you never spend it? I wonder what is the longest continuous account in banking that has never been touched. Anyway, that is a tangent and a somewhat artificial scenario. Can you name a naturally occurring scenario? I would accept technology if you could show that it isn't going to level out like all other natural phenomenon.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      I am not sure I understand your point. Who says it needs to be exponential forever?
    - njbooher 10y ago
      The size of the universe.
    - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
      Bacterial growth is exponential until a limit is reached. You can find many examples. Doesn't really have anything to do with the article or OP post though.
gnahckire 10y ago
Have you heard of AI winter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter Too much opportunistic thinkinking caused crazy hype cycles.
cLeEOGPw 10y ago
People also predicted there would be fully functional human replacing kitchen assistants by the year 1960. Just because someone overestimates or underestimates things, it doesn't affect how slow/fast it may progress. So adjusting future predictions based on offset of past predictions just makes no sense.

riboflava 10y ago

AGI 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 ago

Self 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.

ThomPete 10y ago
Yes but it wasn't even remotely seen as possible by the masses for decades to come. It's already here now.
- guelo 10y ago
  Cool! I wasn't aware. Where I can go buy one?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-driving-taxis-get-a-test-drive-in-singapore/#181db7f21b63 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/08/31/self-dri...
    - daveguy 10y ago
      That's a link to an about a company who is testing autonomous taxis. You could also link to Google's self driving car tests. Neither are ready for sale to the general public.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        Thats not the point and think you know it.
    - guelo 10y ago
      "It’s not that the cars are fully driverless, either"
  - chclau 10y ago
    Are you aware that in Singapur, driver less cabs are already in service? And that many of the biggies have plans for autonomous cars within a few years?
  - unprepare 10y ago
    http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-vehicles-finland-helsinki-transportation http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-ve... you can at least ride in one (if youve got bus fare)

Animats 10y ago

"Just 10 years ago self driving cars was something you joked about." That changed on the second day of the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Suddenly, there were lots of self-driving cars running around. The sudden change in the attitude of the reporters there was remarkable.

argonaut 10y ago

"I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years" - Deep Blue architect, 2007. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/cracking-go

Inlinked 10y ago
And for the self-driving cars: http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/robotcars.html
ThomPete 10y ago
You are missing the point completely. Of course there were people who believed that Go would be able to beat humans. Just as today there are people who believe that AI can be a treat. But it wasn't a majority of people who believed Go would be able just as it isn't a majority who believes AI can be a threat. I.e. just because the majority believe something doesn't mean it will be so (or vice versa)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- argonaut 10y ago
  You're going to need citations for your unsubstantiated claims. I've brought forth a highly prominent expert opinion in 2007 that computer Go would be dominant by 2017. And not media reports from present-day that just repeat this meme that almost everyone believed Go wouldn't happen for decades.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Again you are missing the point. A highly prominent expert opinion but the general consensus was that it would take a long time. Ask anyone who went to AI class back then. Here is another expert "In May of 2014, Wired published a feature titled, “The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win,” where computer scientist Rémi Coulom estimated we were a decade away from having a computer beat a professional Go player. (To his credit, he also said he didn’t like making predictions.)" http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/ You also find highly prominent expert opinions that AI is going to be dangerous and experts who don't believe it. Most people don't believe it, most people believe robots wont take jobs either. And no I don't need to provide you with anything since you have only problem my point that most people didn't believe it would happen which is why you didn't link to anything saying that most believed it would happen.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> We consistently overestimate progress in the short run and underestimate in the long. You can't overestimate the economic pressures on progress as well. Remember in 2007 when everybody thumbed their noses at hybrid and electric vehicles in the US? Ford was still pumping out record numbers of their behemoth Excursion model. Then the economy crashed, and people suddenly needed a fuel efficient car and then they all traded in their SUV's for what? Toyota Prius' which were an after thought a few years prior - in the span of 18 months, Toyota couldn't keep them on the lot. I can see one or more catastrophic disasters where there is a sudden need for AI to rescue the human race in some capacity. Think nuclear war, environmental disaster, biological catastrophe, etc.

daveguy 10y ago

Can you name anything in nature that experiences exponential growth, or is it all logistic growth?

ThomPete 10y ago
Technology is part of nature in my view. I don't distinguish. If you mean in biology then I guess cell division is an example?
- daveguy 10y ago
  No, I meant in nature. In all of the natural world. Physics through economics and everything in between including technology. (Hint: nothing is exponential -- it always levels off. Otherwise we would have been consumed by it.) I would be genuinely surprised and extremely curious to see any natural phenomenon that maintains exponential growth. I guess compound interest could be considered indefinitely exponential, but you eventually reach a barrier in what's insured and it is a relatively small exponent. Also, is it still savings if you never spend it? I wonder what is the longest continuous account in banking that has never been touched. Anyway, that is a tangent and a somewhat artificial scenario. Can you name a naturally occurring scenario? I would accept technology if you could show that it isn't going to level out like all other natural phenomenon.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I am not sure I understand your point. Who says it needs to be exponential forever?
  - njbooher 10y ago
    The size of the universe.
  - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
    Bacterial growth is exponential until a limit is reached. You can find many examples. Doesn't really have anything to do with the article or OP post though.

gnahckire 10y ago

Have you heard of AI winter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter Too much opportunistic thinkinking caused crazy hype cycles.

cLeEOGPw 10y ago

People also predicted there would be fully functional human replacing kitchen assistants by the year 1960. Just because someone overestimates or underestimates things, it doesn't affect how slow/fast it may progress. So adjusting future predictions based on offset of past predictions just makes no sense.