4 ms·
If you read the research, there is lots of incremental progress being made. Mainly with pixels - classifying them into objects, matching object locations to tex
by hacker_9 10y ago
If you read the research, there is lots of incremental progress being made. Mainly with pixels - classifying them into objects, matching object locations to text, attempting to predict future pixel values etc. But this stuff is very 'surface level', not even close to the way our brains effortlessly interpret light - classify objects, detect depth, account for lighting, complete objects we can't see, invoke feeling of the material we are looking at, invoke past memories, detect threats, and so on - every single millisecond.
This doesn't even begin to get into the core of AGI, which is the 'thinking' component. Given this amazing mass of data, how do we then make the machine work towards it's goals? Is this just a neural network? Is it a billion neural networks? Too many variables to tell.
And even then, if every action it takes is a reaction to the environment, does it then not have freewill? Do we have freewill? Is 'consciousness' somehow the key to freewill?
But anyway if you listen to Musk or Hawking, doomsday AI is just round the corner.
- dasboth 10y agoThere is research directly addressing "transfer learning" where the goal is to have more general learning agents. I don't know how advanced it is, but it's certainly not advanced enough to become anything close to an AGI by 2018. Ultimately I think there are far more pressing issues in AI around ethics, bias, or security. It's great that there are philosophers who can sit around and worry about a possible distant future (and I think as thought exercises they're fascinating), but it's not what most people in the field should be concerned with.