3 ms·

No, I just meant to reference my discussion from there (i.e. for people to read through my comments there, after clicking.) IOW I meant to transclude that disc

No, I just meant to reference my discussion from there (i.e. for people to read through my comments there, after clicking.) IOW I meant to transclude that discussion here. (Perhaps within that comment thread a good specific summary comment is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13090869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13090869) Obviously it is hard to know when that magic moment will happen that some kind of general AI is created that can learn in some sense similarly to how humans do. My every indication and astonishment at the results that are being produced strongly suggests "at any moment". The results are absolutely astonishing every day and we have vastly more than enough firepower. You might also be interested in this separate thread where I dealt with questions of consciousness and pain. I again reference it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13026020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13026020 and you can click through at the top to follow my reference. We are way past the point of no return here, and in my estimation it is a question of years or at the most decades - not centuries.

lucidrains 10y ago
absolutely dude.. for example, this paper just popped up in the last week https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02167 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02167
- nomailing 10y ago
  Interesting. The concept seems to be very similar to this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01578 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01578
Noseshine 10y ago
> Obviously it is hard to know when that magic moment will happen that some kind of general AI > is created that can learn in some sense similarly to how humans do. My every indication and > astonishment at the results that are being produced strongly suggests "at any moment". As an IT guy with a basic but solid neuroscience education (which isn't even needed for what I'm about to say): Yep, you are on the hype train, and very deeply. I really like reasonable discussions, I have no idea what this is right here. We will see more amazing results, sure - but applications will be specialized narrow subjects. From creating "some kind of general AI is created that can learn in some sense similarly to how humans do" we are still very far away. Your statements remind me of 1960s "future" hype,a nuclear reactor in every car by the year 2000, stuff like that.
- logicallee 10y ago
  My hype is different, because in my estimation we already have the hardware. You write: >As an IT guy with a basic but solid neuroscience education -- could you go ahead and take a few minutes (maybe will take you 5-10) to read through my above-referenced links referencing my previous discussion and tell me whether I'm correct in your estimation on the bottom-up aspect - i.e. the amount of computation that human neural nets can likely be doing, and how it compares to server farms with fast interconnects today? I'm not an expert in neuroscience so your feedback might be helpful there.
  - xamuel 10y ago
    If P=NP then we already have the hardware to crack RSA encryption. The above sentence is true, but it has no bearing on anything.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      don't you think it would have a lot more bearing if you had 7 billion devices nonchallantly walking around cracking RSA every day using the same or less hardware? (but we couldn't reverse-engineer them, because they were obfuscated in biology)? The fact that they weren't reverse-engineered (yet) would still have huge bearing on everything. By 7 billion samples I mean the humans walking around. Your analogy with an RSA crack is fundamentally different beccause biology doesn't do it in 3 pounds of grey goo in seven billion different bodies already. so you would have to come up with an analogy that uses something we cant use, to say, okay fine it exists and fine, we have the hardware to also do it, but the former doesn't have any bearing on us doing the latter.
      - xamuel 10y ago
        Interesting observation. If brains routinely cracked RSA, that could be evidence that P=NP. Still it wouldn't help us find the P-time algorithm in question. We could say "it seems to exist", but that would not imply "we'll discover it any day now".

lucidrains 10y ago

absolutely dude.. for example, this paper just popped up in the last week https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02167 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02167

nomailing 10y ago
Interesting. The concept seems to be very similar to this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01578 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01578

Noseshine 10y ago

> Obviously it is hard to know when that magic moment will happen that some kind of general AI > is created that can learn in some sense similarly to how humans do. My every indication and > astonishment at the results that are being produced strongly suggests "at any moment". As an IT guy with a basic but solid neuroscience education (which isn't even needed for what I'm about to say): Yep, you are on the hype train, and very deeply. I really like reasonable discussions, I have no idea what this is right here. We will see more amazing results, sure - but applications will be specialized narrow subjects. From creating "some kind of general AI is created that can learn in some sense similarly to how humans do" we are still very far away. Your statements remind me of 1960s "future" hype,a nuclear reactor in every car by the year 2000, stuff like that.

logicallee 10y ago
My hype is different, because in my estimation we already have the hardware. You write: >As an IT guy with a basic but solid neuroscience education -- could you go ahead and take a few minutes (maybe will take you 5-10) to read through my above-referenced links referencing my previous discussion and tell me whether I'm correct in your estimation on the bottom-up aspect - i.e. the amount of computation that human neural nets can likely be doing, and how it compares to server farms with fast interconnects today? I'm not an expert in neuroscience so your feedback might be helpful there.
- xamuel 10y ago
  If P=NP then we already have the hardware to crack RSA encryption. The above sentence is true, but it has no bearing on anything.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    don't you think it would have a lot more bearing if you had 7 billion devices nonchallantly walking around cracking RSA every day using the same or less hardware? (but we couldn't reverse-engineer them, because they were obfuscated in biology)? The fact that they weren't reverse-engineered (yet) would still have huge bearing on everything. By 7 billion samples I mean the humans walking around. Your analogy with an RSA crack is fundamentally different beccause biology doesn't do it in 3 pounds of grey goo in seven billion different bodies already. so you would have to come up with an analogy that uses something we cant use, to say, okay fine it exists and fine, we have the hardware to also do it, but the former doesn't have any bearing on us doing the latter.
    - xamuel 10y ago
      Interesting observation. If brains routinely cracked RSA, that could be evidence that P=NP. Still it wouldn't help us find the P-time algorithm in question. We could say "it seems to exist", but that would not imply "we'll discover it any day now".