6 ms·

"Ever" is not a useful word here. It's like saying "Will four year olds ever be grown in pods?" A better headline might be "Can AI learn as flexibly as a four

"Ever" is not a useful word here. It's like saying "Will four year olds ever be grown in pods?" A better headline might be "Can AI learn as flexibly as a four year old with today's known techniques?", to which the answer is of course "No".

b_tterc_p 8y ago
Those sound like different questions. The original is asking if it is theoretically plausible. I don’t think that’s out of line.
- eof 8y ago
  To be fair, the article did little to nothing to address if it's theoretically plausible. Just that we are far away at the moment.
- laumars 8y ago
  The OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. While I do see - and to an extent agree with - their point, I there is a lot more wrong with that heading than just the lack of a contextual end date.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    > The OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. Or, somewhat more plausibly, some theory or technique that constitutes a minor subfield right now but could be the next big thing in another 20-30 years, or whenever someone just makes it really fast.
    - laumars 8y ago
      I still personally think would be the former context (current tech) rather than the latter context ("ever") because you're discussing something that is already working theory - even if it is just a subfield. So the question doesn't become "Will we ever have..." but rather "When will it become...". Ever applies more for something with an indeterminate future imo.
crusso 8y ago
Right, the title of the article is inane. Brains just process information. Computers process information and we continue to make them better at it. Eventually, computers will process information at least as well as brains do for various definitions of "well". https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without...
- Conjoiner 8y ago
  how can we know that computers process information?
- short_sells_poo 8y ago
  That seems like a very reductionist way to look at it. There is absolutely no guarantee that consciousness and general intelligence is an emergent property of any sufficiently capable information processing system. It feels intuitive that it would be, but so far we only have biological examples and no artificial ones. Even the most sophisticated artificial neural networks we can build today are nothing more than curve fitting with lots of parameters. Perhaps that's all it takes, and with enough parameters, curve fitting can give rise to general AI, but I'm seeing very bold predictions on HN every time this comes up and none of them are actually backed by anything tangible.
  - crusso 8y ago
    Watch the video that I linked. Your questions/issues are answered or obviated by it.
    - short_sells_poo 8y ago
      Can you please point out where? Because I did watch this video in the past and I know about Sam Harris and his views. He addresses _none_ of my points and provides _zero_ proof for any of your claims. He makes interesting claims and proposes interesting outcomes given assumptions that are far from certain. Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched and supported claims and assumptions from where we are now, to artificial general intelligence? A runaway positive-feedback loop of continuously (self-)improving machines is a _possibility_ but by no means an inevitability. We don't even know what consciousness really is, what gives rise to it. To make a claim that it is inevitable that we'll be able to create general intelligence seems like an absurdly bold claim to make. Again, I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems hubris to me to declare that it is certain, when we only have vague and nebulous predictions to work on.
thijsvandien 8y ago
When the question is literally 'ever', the only thing that matters is the relative rate of improvement. Do computers get better at "learning" faster than young kids, e.g. comparing kids 20 years ago and now with computers 20 years ago and now? It seems to me that computers got a lot better while child development remained essentially the same. Unless that will change, given time—infinity should be enough—eventually computers will be "smarter".

b_tterc_p 8y ago

Those sound like different questions. The original is asking if it is theoretically plausible. I don’t think that’s out of line.

eof 8y ago
To be fair, the article did little to nothing to address if it's theoretically plausible. Just that we are far away at the moment.
laumars 8y ago
The OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. While I do see - and to an extent agree with - their point, I there is a lot more wrong with that heading than just the lack of a contextual end date.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  > The OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. Or, somewhat more plausibly, some theory or technique that constitutes a minor subfield right now but could be the next big thing in another 20-30 years, or whenever someone just makes it really fast.
  - laumars 8y ago
    I still personally think would be the former context (current tech) rather than the latter context ("ever") because you're discussing something that is already working theory - even if it is just a subfield. So the question doesn't become "Will we ever have..." but rather "When will it become...". Ever applies more for something with an indeterminate future imo.

crusso 8y ago

Right, the title of the article is inane. Brains just process information. Computers process information and we continue to make them better at it. Eventually, computers will process information at least as well as brains do for various definitions of "well". https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without...

Conjoiner 8y ago
how can we know that computers process information?
short_sells_poo 8y ago
That seems like a very reductionist way to look at it. There is absolutely no guarantee that consciousness and general intelligence is an emergent property of any sufficiently capable information processing system. It feels intuitive that it would be, but so far we only have biological examples and no artificial ones. Even the most sophisticated artificial neural networks we can build today are nothing more than curve fitting with lots of parameters. Perhaps that's all it takes, and with enough parameters, curve fitting can give rise to general AI, but I'm seeing very bold predictions on HN every time this comes up and none of them are actually backed by anything tangible.
- crusso 8y ago
  Watch the video that I linked. Your questions/issues are answered or obviated by it.
  - short_sells_poo 8y ago
    Can you please point out where? Because I did watch this video in the past and I know about Sam Harris and his views. He addresses _none_ of my points and provides _zero_ proof for any of your claims. He makes interesting claims and proposes interesting outcomes given assumptions that are far from certain. Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched and supported claims and assumptions from where we are now, to artificial general intelligence? A runaway positive-feedback loop of continuously (self-)improving machines is a _possibility_ but by no means an inevitability. We don't even know what consciousness really is, what gives rise to it. To make a claim that it is inevitable that we'll be able to create general intelligence seems like an absurdly bold claim to make. Again, I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems hubris to me to declare that it is certain, when we only have vague and nebulous predictions to work on.

thijsvandien 8y ago

When the question is literally 'ever', the only thing that matters is the relative rate of improvement. Do computers get better at "learning" faster than young kids, e.g. comparing kids 20 years ago and now with computers 20 years ago and now? It seems to me that computers got a lot better while child development remained essentially the same. Unless that will change, given time—infinity should be enough—eventually computers will be "smarter".