3 ms·

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

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
      > Most humans do not really come up with our goals on our own either I disagree. I believe we have free will, in addition to being influenced by our environment/genes. This is my general point, that contemplating AI is a way for us to investigate how we ourselves operate. You have your theory and I have mine. Nobody has shown how we can be replicated. EDIT > 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, without value alignment with humans, some subgoal could be killing starving kittens to reduce their suffering If the AGI's goals are determined by a human, then it is technically trivial to encode human values. The hard part is convincing humans not to encode evil values. So it isn't that AGI would go rogue, it's that humans could. That's an age-old, Adam & Eve question. It's not specific to AI technology.
      - nopinsight 9y ago
        Unfortunately, no one can really articulate the full set of human values yet, especially since they are often in conflict in real-world situations. Which value(s) should be prioritized over others? How about differing values between cultures and human groups within each culture? You might have heard of the Trolley Problem. There are many and more complicated variations of that. This Harvard session on Justice (The Moral Side of Murder) is edifying and surprisingly fun to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The problem with AGI is more acute than most other technologies because it is software-based, which makes it nigh impossible to regulate effectively, especially globally.

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
    > Most humans do not really come up with our goals on our own either I disagree. I believe we have free will, in addition to being influenced by our environment/genes. This is my general point, that contemplating AI is a way for us to investigate how we ourselves operate. You have your theory and I have mine. Nobody has shown how we can be replicated. EDIT > 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, without value alignment with humans, some subgoal could be killing starving kittens to reduce their suffering If the AGI's goals are determined by a human, then it is technically trivial to encode human values. The hard part is convincing humans not to encode evil values. So it isn't that AGI would go rogue, it's that humans could. That's an age-old, Adam & Eve question. It's not specific to AI technology.
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      Unfortunately, no one can really articulate the full set of human values yet, especially since they are often in conflict in real-world situations. Which value(s) should be prioritized over others? How about differing values between cultures and human groups within each culture? You might have heard of the Trolley Problem. There are many and more complicated variations of that. This Harvard session on Justice (The Moral Side of Murder) is edifying and surprisingly fun to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The problem with AGI is more acute than most other technologies because it is software-based, which makes it nigh impossible to regulate effectively, especially globally.