4 ms·

For NLU, to convince me the potential, one important evidence I would be particularly interested, is the demonstration of reasoning. Unlike the current black-bo

For NLU, to convince me the potential, one important evidence I would be particularly interested, is the demonstration of reasoning. Unlike the current black-box model, I would love to see the model give explanation, along with the answer, what it takes to lead such conclusion, be it a rule listed in the manual or case that happened before. This itself presents several big challenges: how do we represent the concept of reasoning, in mathematical form? Knowledge required or not? What is the representation of such knowledge? A truly intelligent machine, should be able to take what human takes, a piece of text, then build its knowledge base from there, then answer a question just like human, then give explanation when asked for it.

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"?