3 ms·

This is short sighted on many levels. Past experiences don't predict the future accurately. Just because we couldn't fly before 1900s didn't predict we never wi

This is short sighted on many levels. Past experiences don't predict the future accurately. Just because we couldn't fly before 1900s didn't predict we never will. We already seen birds doing it but it took a while to reach a breakthrough. > This is not something AI is anywhere close to being able to do. YET :) Just look at these research available today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgB3Xg5st2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgB3Xg5st2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzg5Qe0pTKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzg5Qe0pTKk Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is not an impossible goal, but we are simply not there. Bug saying we never will needs a great evidence which we don't have afaik. An AGI system should be able to write computer code based on vague specification. If it's intelligent it will write back clarifying questions. Just like I do on a regular basis. I imagine such a system will be running constantly for years.

emodendroket 9y ago
> Past experiences don't predict the future accurately. Just because we couldn't fly before 1900s didn't predict we never will. We already seen birds doing it but it took a while to reach a breakthrough. OK, but by this logic literally any outcome is as likely as any other. Not much basis for prognostication there.
runeks 9y ago
> An AGI system should be able to write computer code based on vague specification. If it's intelligent it will write back clarifying questions. What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out? To me, what you describe sounds like what every programmer does: enter code and look at what the compiler says. There's nothing qualitatively different from what you describe and a sufficiently powerful type system. You have to somehow communicate a specification to a computer; this is programming. Languages might become more powerful, but you always want to be able to point to the place in the specification that implements your important feature, and not have some computer hopefully deduce it. If you have some extremely important implementation note, would you rather specify it in exact terms via code, or give vague hints about it and depend on it being deduced by some AI compiler? What if you have hundreds of important implementation notes? It all ends up being code.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  > What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? For non programmers, manager type people it would be the holy grail. Not necessarily faster but probably cheaper :) > Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out? Yes, if sufficiently enough systems are wired up then it should be able to at least guess what level of abstraction is missing or what to ask next to proceed. I know what programming is, I do it day to day. Here I'm talking about a generally intelligent system that could do the same. The trick obviously is to skip writing detailed enough specification that would be equivalent to code. The article says that programming won't be automated. I say that we don't have the capable systems, but we are getting there slowly.
  - taylodl 9y ago
    Correct - it's about managing complexity of a different kind. It's not about reducing the complexity, it's about changing the kind of complexity to that which humans are better-equipped to handle. As you say this is the holy grail for non-programmers, which is to say it'll completely redefine what we call "programming."
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is not an impossible goal, but we are simply not there. But saying we never will needs a great evidence which we don't have afaik. "AGI is not an impossible goal" also has no evidence afaik.
- lgas 9y ago
  I suspect they just mean that there's no particular part that seems impossible from where we sit now. There's no part that is prima facie impossible (eg a square circle). The problem of course is that we don't know enough to do it yet... so we also don't know enough to know that it's not doable. We may learn some reason that it's impossible along the way, but we haven't learned of any so far.

emodendroket 9y ago

> Past experiences don't predict the future accurately. Just because we couldn't fly before 1900s didn't predict we never will. We already seen birds doing it but it took a while to reach a breakthrough. OK, but by this logic literally any outcome is as likely as any other. Not much basis for prognostication there.

runeks 9y ago

> An AGI system should be able to write computer code based on vague specification. If it's intelligent it will write back clarifying questions. What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out? To me, what you describe sounds like what every programmer does: enter code and look at what the compiler says. There's nothing qualitatively different from what you describe and a sufficiently powerful type system. You have to somehow communicate a specification to a computer; this is programming. Languages might become more powerful, but you always want to be able to point to the place in the specification that implements your important feature, and not have some computer hopefully deduce it. If you have some extremely important implementation note, would you rather specify it in exact terms via code, or give vague hints about it and depend on it being deduced by some AI compiler? What if you have hundreds of important implementation notes? It all ends up being code.

kowdermeister 9y ago
> What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? For non programmers, manager type people it would be the holy grail. Not necessarily faster but probably cheaper :) > Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out? Yes, if sufficiently enough systems are wired up then it should be able to at least guess what level of abstraction is missing or what to ask next to proceed. I know what programming is, I do it day to day. Here I'm talking about a generally intelligent system that could do the same. The trick obviously is to skip writing detailed enough specification that would be equivalent to code. The article says that programming won't be automated. I say that we don't have the capable systems, but we are getting there slowly.
- taylodl 9y ago
  Correct - it's about managing complexity of a different kind. It's not about reducing the complexity, it's about changing the kind of complexity to that which humans are better-equipped to handle. As you say this is the holy grail for non-programmers, which is to say it'll completely redefine what we call "programming."

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is not an impossible goal, but we are simply not there. But saying we never will needs a great evidence which we don't have afaik. "AGI is not an impossible goal" also has no evidence afaik.

lgas 9y ago
I suspect they just mean that there's no particular part that seems impossible from where we sit now. There's no part that is prima facie impossible (eg a square circle). The problem of course is that we don't know enough to do it yet... so we also don't know enough to know that it's not doable. We may learn some reason that it's impossible along the way, but we haven't learned of any so far.