4 ms·

> 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 b

> 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
        Thanks for the answer. Most humans do not really come up with our goals on our own either. We are heavily influenced by genes and environment. People's personality are partially changed by the environment and occupation they are in. Twins adoption studies also show that genes have surprisingly strong effects on personality even after decades living apart. By your definition, humans do not possess general intelligence. Edit-Reply: I don't think we can resolve an age-old philosophical question on Free Will in a comment thread, so I'll leave it at that. :) However, General Intelligence and Free Will are largely orthogonal. We can imagine an alien who is highly capable of any tasks human can perform and beyond, including coming up with creative subgoals as necessary, but will only serve their master's ultimate goal(s). An AGI could be like that alien but built to serve human masters. The twist is that when someone orders an AGI to efficiently reduce animal suffering, without value alignment with humans, it could come up with euthanasia as a subgoal to reduce the suffering of starving kittens.
        unityByFreedom 9y ago
pure21r 9y ago
So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? "Don't worry about it, humanity has always prevented slow moving disasters."? Because the question is not about whether one should develop AI or not, but if we should be worried and work actively to minimize risk, as has been done on the nuclear case... So suppose you simulate 100 Earths from today t=0? What are the best strategies to prevent this problem? Are we doing all we can? What proportion of the 100 Earths have a good outcome? In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? For example, what's the worst that could happen if we all worry today for nothing, and in 50 years we all live happily in the cloud? What if we don't worry now and it turns out that AI somehow wiped half the population (or all of it)? If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"?
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Edit: You don't need to paste the same comment all over this thread. Spamming doesn't lead to interesting conversation. > So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? I've seen people throwing that example in this thread and I don't see why. Multiple countries invested heavily in building the bomb. It was not a question if building a bomb was possible, but rather how soon, and by whom. > In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? Some people do worry about it, but everyone need not. I don't. > If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"? Good example. No I wouldn't because I know we have systems monitoring for such an event. If something is coming, we will know about it. I'm not sure how far in advance we would know, but I expect as it got nearer more and more people would do their best to come up with a good solution. We're no nearer to AGI today than we were when neural networks were developed 30 years ago. Science fiction would have you believe it, but we don't look at SciFi movies of the 50s as particularly prescient, and we shouldn't do so for today's films either.

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
      Thanks for the answer. Most humans do not really come up with our goals on our own either. We are heavily influenced by genes and environment. People's personality are partially changed by the environment and occupation they are in. Twins adoption studies also show that genes have surprisingly strong effects on personality even after decades living apart. By your definition, humans do not possess general intelligence. Edit-Reply: I don't think we can resolve an age-old philosophical question on Free Will in a comment thread, so I'll leave it at that. :) However, General Intelligence and Free Will are largely orthogonal. We can imagine an alien who is highly capable of any tasks human can perform and beyond, including coming up with creative subgoals as necessary, but will only serve their master's ultimate goal(s). An AGI could be like that alien but built to serve human masters. The twist is that when someone orders an AGI to efficiently reduce animal suffering, without value alignment with humans, it could come up with euthanasia as a subgoal to reduce the suffering of starving kittens.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago

pure21r 9y ago

So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? "Don't worry about it, humanity has always prevented slow moving disasters."? Because the question is not about whether one should develop AI or not, but if we should be worried and work actively to minimize risk, as has been done on the nuclear case... So suppose you simulate 100 Earths from today t=0? What are the best strategies to prevent this problem? Are we doing all we can? What proportion of the 100 Earths have a good outcome? In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? For example, what's the worst that could happen if we all worry today for nothing, and in 50 years we all live happily in the cloud? What if we don't worry now and it turns out that AI somehow wiped half the population (or all of it)? If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"?

unityByFreedom 9y ago
Edit: You don't need to paste the same comment all over this thread. Spamming doesn't lead to interesting conversation. > So what would be your equivalent position in the 1940s about the nuclear solution? I've seen people throwing that example in this thread and I don't see why. Multiple countries invested heavily in building the bomb. It was not a question if building a bomb was possible, but rather how soon, and by whom. > In other words, what are the risks and benefits of adopting a "worried" versus a "don't worry about it" position? Some people do worry about it, but everyone need not. I don't. > If there's a possible huge meteor (say 30% chance) of hitting the Earth in about 50 years, would you be "worried"? Good example. No I wouldn't because I know we have systems monitoring for such an event. If something is coming, we will know about it. I'm not sure how far in advance we would know, but I expect as it got nearer more and more people would do their best to come up with a good solution. We're no nearer to AGI today than we were when neural networks were developed 30 years ago. Science fiction would have you believe it, but we don't look at SciFi movies of the 50s as particularly prescient, and we shouldn't do so for today's films either.