4 ms·

Stuart Russel doesn't put a specific date on the arrival of AGI. That puts him at odds with Musk, who predicts 2030-2040. It's also at odds with the study tha

Stuart Russel doesn't put a specific date on the arrival of AGI. That puts him at odds with Musk, who predicts 2030-2040. It's also at odds with the study that has the very biased question asking experts "when do you think AGI will arrive?". Many chose not to answer the question, and thus their answers can't be averaged in. Many of the AGI safety conscious crowd skip over the question of whether we will be able to create AGI and just assume we will. There's no precedent for this kind of discovery. Fire, the lightbulb, and nuclear weapons all pale in comparison.

nopinsight 9y ago
We also don't know how long it will take to solve Provably Safe AI problem. Wouldn't it be wiser to start preparing now? Nuclear weapons were deemed impossible by some experts at the time. Throughout history, whenever there are a number of experts who believe something to be impossible and a substantial number who believe it to be possible, the latter are almost always right. See also my other answer that begins with "Unlike airplanes, ..."
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > We also don't know how long it will take to solve Provably Safe AI problem. Wouldn't it be wiser to start preparing now? Sure, go for it. I think this has been in the news a lot recently because Musk told government leaders to expect AGI as early as 2030-2040. It's a bit of a ridiculous claim. One of the biggest AI competitions, ImageNet, expects to run for the next 12 years, and that's just for making sense of images. Perhaps it'll be done in less than 12, however, the predictions of the ML community and Musk do not line up. > Nuclear weapons were deemed impossible by some experts at the time. I suppose time will tell with regards to AGI then. I suspect we'll have another economic dip before 2030, and all this hype will die down before then. And, we'll remember this time as any other in the past when we predicted flying cars by the year 2000
  - nopinsight 9y ago
    It was announced this year's ImageNet competition would be the last. Any change to this? http://image-net.org/challenges/beyond_ilsvrc http://image-net.org/challenges/beyond_ilsvrc Edit: I think the announcement above is about object recognition on still images, which is largely solved. The "new ImageNet" one on Kaggle in the reply below is for videos.
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      Hosted by Kaggle now: https://www.kaggle.com/c/imagenet-object-detection-from-video-challenge https://www.kaggle.com/c/imagenet-object-detection-from-vide... I don't really understand the press release on image-net.org. Maybe they meant the last competition hosted by the same group? Edit: See page 84 of the PDF linked here: https://www.google.com/search?q=kaggle+site%3Aimage-net.org https://www.google.com/search?q=kaggle+site%3Aimage-net.org Ps- screw you Google for not letting me copy links to PDF search results via my phone
      - nopinsight 9y ago
        By the way, since you appear to be reasonable skeptic, would you mind replying to my comment beginning with "Unlike airplanes, ..."? Specifically I wonder what would be a minimum threshold for you to believe that AGI is likely possible.
        unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > would you mind replying to my comment beginning with "Unlike airplanes, ..."? Ok, will try > Specifically I wonder what would be a minimum threshold for you to believe that AGI is likely possible. Current machine learning tech doesn't have any sense of creating its own goals. We also don't know how to encode that. All of the systems we have target specific problems, like playing Atari games, identifying objects in images, or playing Go. These are all great milestones in machine learning tech. They do not indicate we're much closer to developing a new intelligence. If we could set a system out there and have it determine its own goals and learn things on its own, then maybe I'd believe we're close to creating AGI. As it stands, we don't know how to run a program that decides what it wants to learn. Every program we write has our hand in it. My suspicion is that our quest for developing AI leads us to discover more about ourselves than AI itself. I think we'll continue to refine our definition of intelligence, and continue to use the tools we build to augment our own intelligence.

nopinsight 9y ago

We also don't know how long it will take to solve Provably Safe AI problem. Wouldn't it be wiser to start preparing now? Nuclear weapons were deemed impossible by some experts at the time. Throughout history, whenever there are a number of experts who believe something to be impossible and a substantial number who believe it to be possible, the latter are almost always right. See also my other answer that begins with "Unlike airplanes, ..."

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> We also don't know how long it will take to solve Provably Safe AI problem. Wouldn't it be wiser to start preparing now? Sure, go for it. I think this has been in the news a lot recently because Musk told government leaders to expect AGI as early as 2030-2040. It's a bit of a ridiculous claim. One of the biggest AI competitions, ImageNet, expects to run for the next 12 years, and that's just for making sense of images. Perhaps it'll be done in less than 12, however, the predictions of the ML community and Musk do not line up. > Nuclear weapons were deemed impossible by some experts at the time. I suppose time will tell with regards to AGI then. I suspect we'll have another economic dip before 2030, and all this hype will die down before then. And, we'll remember this time as any other in the past when we predicted flying cars by the year 2000
- nopinsight 9y ago
  It was announced this year's ImageNet competition would be the last. Any change to this? http://image-net.org/challenges/beyond_ilsvrc http://image-net.org/challenges/beyond_ilsvrc Edit: I think the announcement above is about object recognition on still images, which is largely solved. The "new ImageNet" one on Kaggle in the reply below is for videos.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    Hosted by Kaggle now: https://www.kaggle.com/c/imagenet-object-detection-from-video-challenge https://www.kaggle.com/c/imagenet-object-detection-from-vide... I don't really understand the press release on image-net.org. Maybe they meant the last competition hosted by the same group? Edit: See page 84 of the PDF linked here: https://www.google.com/search?q=kaggle+site%3Aimage-net.org https://www.google.com/search?q=kaggle+site%3Aimage-net.org Ps- screw you Google for not letting me copy links to PDF search results via my phone
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      By the way, since you appear to be reasonable skeptic, would you mind replying to my comment beginning with "Unlike airplanes, ..."? Specifically I wonder what would be a minimum threshold for you to believe that AGI is likely possible.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > would you mind replying to my comment beginning with "Unlike airplanes, ..."? Ok, will try > Specifically I wonder what would be a minimum threshold for you to believe that AGI is likely possible. Current machine learning tech doesn't have any sense of creating its own goals. We also don't know how to encode that. All of the systems we have target specific problems, like playing Atari games, identifying objects in images, or playing Go. These are all great milestones in machine learning tech. They do not indicate we're much closer to developing a new intelligence. If we could set a system out there and have it determine its own goals and learn things on its own, then maybe I'd believe we're close to creating AGI. As it stands, we don't know how to run a program that decides what it wants to learn. Every program we write has our hand in it. My suspicion is that our quest for developing AI leads us to discover more about ourselves than AI itself. I think we'll continue to refine our definition of intelligence, and continue to use the tools we build to augment our own intelligence.