4 ms·

I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close. But we don't need fully general AI to have a huge transformative impact on

I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close. But we don't need fully general AI to have a huge transformative impact on society and the economy. Think about the full spectrum of jobs that exist in the modern world: doctor, teacher, construction worker, truck driver, chef, waiter, hair dresser, and so on. How many of those jobs actually require the full power of human intelligence? In my view, almost none. Maybe the intelligence required is still more general than what a computer can do, but probably a determined research effort could be enough to make up the gap for any specific task (say, to cut someone's hair, you need to have good visual understanding of the shape of the head, and very good scissor-manipulation skills, and a good UI so that the customer can select a style. It hardly seems like an insurmountable technical challenge).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jng 10y ago
Maybe a pair of scissors near a head are not the best example of imperfect AI being applied in a great way.
smdz 10y ago
> I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close. In all probability, I want to agree with you. However, deep learning unnerves me. Seriously, how many people who evolved the deep-learning-trained models actually understand how those models work? But the models produce good-to-great results. So there could be a small chance that general AI could randomly and spontaneously come into existence. Either we are too close to general AI or infinitely far from it. We can't tell it because we are not sure if intelligence is a evolved goal oriented function or an engineered substance. Being an atheist, I believe the first part - and thats what deep-learning based AI looks like.
- zebrafish 10y ago
  A major difference here is that humans don't have user defined stimuli. Human intelligence evolved because of the need to survive which evolved because of the need for genetic replication. Our need to survive lead to a nervous system which created the need for a central management platform (the brain). People do understand the deep-learning models they create. They're based on a user defined limit for error which is the mathematical distance between what is and what is not. I think that until we have an algorithm that can rewrite itself optimizing for existence (bug-less-ness and a continuous power supply?), we won't even scratch the surface of general AI.
blackRust 10y ago
I think you vastly underestimate the creative problem solving skills that even "unskilled" humans are capable of, which is required to cut hair.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jng 10y ago

Maybe a pair of scissors near a head are not the best example of imperfect AI being applied in a great way.

smdz 10y ago

> I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close. In all probability, I want to agree with you. However, deep learning unnerves me. Seriously, how many people who evolved the deep-learning-trained models actually understand how those models work? But the models produce good-to-great results. So there could be a small chance that general AI could randomly and spontaneously come into existence. Either we are too close to general AI or infinitely far from it. We can't tell it because we are not sure if intelligence is a evolved goal oriented function or an engineered substance. Being an atheist, I believe the first part - and thats what deep-learning based AI looks like.

zebrafish 10y ago
A major difference here is that humans don't have user defined stimuli. Human intelligence evolved because of the need to survive which evolved because of the need for genetic replication. Our need to survive lead to a nervous system which created the need for a central management platform (the brain). People do understand the deep-learning models they create. They're based on a user defined limit for error which is the mathematical distance between what is and what is not. I think that until we have an algorithm that can rewrite itself optimizing for existence (bug-less-ness and a continuous power supply?), we won't even scratch the surface of general AI.

blackRust 10y ago

I think you vastly underestimate the creative problem solving skills that even "unskilled" humans are capable of, which is required to cut hair.