3 ms·

> It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task. Humans are bound by the size of t

by manux 9y ago

> It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task. Humans are bound by the size of their brains. Machines can "duplicate themselves", in a way, it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection. Humans can't do that. If pro Go players stop playing Go and decide to master sword-making, they will forget about Go. A machine could be designed not to.

10-6 9y ago
"it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection" People like Elon Musk will write sentences like this but hidden away in it is a subtle reference to an AI program understanding what it's doing. An AI program cannot jump from mastery of Go (with its neural networks and weighted matrices) to all of a sudden decide to figure out what the best course of action is to stop global warming or find a cure for cancer. Humans write AI programs to learn how to perform a specific task via optimization, neural networks, deep learning, and all sorts of other algorithms. One of the authors main arguments is that "learning and optimization" that AI programs do today does not mean they are close to achieving "general AI" which the author also thinks is not possible: "Decades later, the concept of an “intelligence explosion” — leading to the sudden rise of “superintelligence” and the accidental end of the human race — has taken hold in the AI community. Famous business leaders are casting it as a major risk, greater than nuclear war or climate change."
- manux 9y ago
  I believe that we are not close to "general AI", at all. Yet, that is a very different position than believing that "general AI" is not possible at all, which I think is a foolish position considering highly adaptative beings exist "biomechanically" in the form of humans.

by manux 9y ago

10-6 9y ago

"it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection" People like Elon Musk will write sentences like this but hidden away in it is a subtle reference to an AI program understanding what it's doing. An AI program cannot jump from mastery of Go (with its neural networks and weighted matrices) to all of a sudden decide to figure out what the best course of action is to stop global warming or find a cure for cancer. Humans write AI programs to learn how to perform a specific task via optimization, neural networks, deep learning, and all sorts of other algorithms. One of the authors main arguments is that "learning and optimization" that AI programs do today does not mean they are close to achieving "general AI" which the author also thinks is not possible: "Decades later, the concept of an “intelligence explosion” — leading to the sudden rise of “superintelligence” and the accidental end of the human race — has taken hold in the AI community. Famous business leaders are casting it as a major risk, greater than nuclear war or climate change."

manux 9y ago
I believe that we are not close to "general AI", at all. Yet, that is a very different position than believing that "general AI" is not possible at all, which I think is a foolish position considering highly adaptative beings exist "biomechanically" in the form of humans.