4 ms·

We still cannot convincingly model behaviour of even simplest individual organisms whose neural circuitry we know in minute detail.

tiborsaas 7y ago
What do you mean by "model behavior"? We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other behavior with just trial and error, I would call that simple behavior. Now here's a more advanced example to teach a virutal character how to flex in the gym: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kie4wjB1MCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kie4wjB1MCw That's a bit more advanced than simple walking. Here's a deployed AI to a real robot "crab": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSNBLAfC7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSNBLAfC7o How about virtual characters learning to cooperate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmYKfU5O_NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmYKfU5O_NA
- misterman0 7y ago
  "We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other [...]" In one of your examples, which are all of narrow AI, we see a mechanical crab powered by ML that has become specialized in walking with a broken limb, which is not even close to what we need if we aim for AGI. For AGI we don't need agents that mimic simple behavior. In my opinion, _mimicking_ behavior will not lead to AGI. What _will_ lead to AGI? No one knows.
  - kowdermeister 7y ago
    macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior and I brought these narrow AI examples as a counter argument since they demonstrate that we can, even complex ones. Domain specific? Yeah, bummer. Nowhere I have stated this is the clear path to AGI and you are right, we are missing key building blocks. But I feel like there's too much skepticism agains this field while the advancements are not appreciated enough. I don't know either what will lead there, but I see more and more examples of different networks being combined to achieve more than they are capable of individually.
    - iguy 7y ago
      > macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior No, the complaint was about modelling the behavior of simple organisms. Certainly we can model some of their behaviors, many of which are highly stereotyped. But the real fly (say) doesn't only walk/fly/scratch/etc, it also decides when to do all of these things. It has ways to decide what search pattern to fly given confusing scents of food nearby. It has ways to judge the fitness of a potential mate, and ways to try to fool potential mates. Our simulations of these things are, I think, really terrible.
      - tiborsaas 7y ago
        I linked to modeled organisms, I always feel the HN crowd expects academic level of precision and discussions, but that kills regular discussions I would have at dinner tables with friends, I wish it would be a more casual place. Yes, I meant "behavior of simple organisms" :) Since everything here is loosely defined I feel it's totally pointless to discuss AI, but it's still an intriguing topic. If you look at those insects, they tend to follow brownian motion in 3D, get food and get confused by light, we can get an accurate model of them and more [0]. The key word here is to model, not replication. Simulations are just that, simulations. Given current examples of what's already possible if someone wanted to, could model a detailed 3D environment with physics, scents and food for our little AI fly. [0] https://www.techradar.com/news/ai-fly-by-artificial-intelligence-is-mapping-the-brains-of-flies https://www.techradar.com/news/ai-fly-by-artificial-intellig... Is that a terrible attempt?
        misterman0 7y ago
        Terrible? Not at all. I'm sorry and apologize if you feel I was one to kill the discussion you wanted to have around AI. I'm one of those dreamers who think AGI is or at least should be possible, soon, through means we have not yet discovered but will, soon. I base that on absolutely nothing, I suppose, other than the fact we have lots of "bright/smart/crazy" devs working on it. It's my own personal "believie", as Louis CK would say about things we believe in but cannot or care not prove. Just like you I'm looking at organisms much simpler than us as a way forward. Many specialized neural network does not make up AGI, is what I think. Is it the organic and human neuron we should model? I don't necessarily think so. Also. robotics + ML is a dead end to me. An amoeba that can evolve into something more complex, is perhaps what we should model.

tiborsaas 7y ago

What do you mean by "model behavior"? We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other behavior with just trial and error, I would call that simple behavior. Now here's a more advanced example to teach a virutal character how to flex in the gym: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kie4wjB1MCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kie4wjB1MCw That's a bit more advanced than simple walking. Here's a deployed AI to a real robot "crab": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSNBLAfC7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSNBLAfC7o How about virtual characters learning to cooperate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmYKfU5O_NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmYKfU5O_NA

misterman0 7y ago
"We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other [...]" In one of your examples, which are all of narrow AI, we see a mechanical crab powered by ML that has become specialized in walking with a broken limb, which is not even close to what we need if we aim for AGI. For AGI we don't need agents that mimic simple behavior. In my opinion, _mimicking_ behavior will not lead to AGI. What _will_ lead to AGI? No one knows.
- kowdermeister 7y ago
  macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior and I brought these narrow AI examples as a counter argument since they demonstrate that we can, even complex ones. Domain specific? Yeah, bummer. Nowhere I have stated this is the clear path to AGI and you are right, we are missing key building blocks. But I feel like there's too much skepticism agains this field while the advancements are not appreciated enough. I don't know either what will lead there, but I see more and more examples of different networks being combined to achieve more than they are capable of individually.
  - iguy 7y ago
    > macleginn's complaint was that we haven't even modelled simple behavior No, the complaint was about modelling the behavior of simple organisms. Certainly we can model some of their behaviors, many of which are highly stereotyped. But the real fly (say) doesn't only walk/fly/scratch/etc, it also decides when to do all of these things. It has ways to decide what search pattern to fly given confusing scents of food nearby. It has ways to judge the fitness of a potential mate, and ways to try to fool potential mates. Our simulations of these things are, I think, really terrible.
    - tiborsaas 7y ago
      I linked to modeled organisms, I always feel the HN crowd expects academic level of precision and discussions, but that kills regular discussions I would have at dinner tables with friends, I wish it would be a more casual place. Yes, I meant "behavior of simple organisms" :) Since everything here is loosely defined I feel it's totally pointless to discuss AI, but it's still an intriguing topic. If you look at those insects, they tend to follow brownian motion in 3D, get food and get confused by light, we can get an accurate model of them and more [0]. The key word here is to model, not replication. Simulations are just that, simulations. Given current examples of what's already possible if someone wanted to, could model a detailed 3D environment with physics, scents and food for our little AI fly. [0] https://www.techradar.com/news/ai-fly-by-artificial-intelligence-is-mapping-the-brains-of-flies https://www.techradar.com/news/ai-fly-by-artificial-intellig... Is that a terrible attempt?
      - misterman0 7y ago
        Terrible? Not at all. I'm sorry and apologize if you feel I was one to kill the discussion you wanted to have around AI. I'm one of those dreamers who think AGI is or at least should be possible, soon, through means we have not yet discovered but will, soon. I base that on absolutely nothing, I suppose, other than the fact we have lots of "bright/smart/crazy" devs working on it. It's my own personal "believie", as Louis CK would say about things we believe in but cannot or care not prove. Just like you I'm looking at organisms much simpler than us as a way forward. Many specialized neural network does not make up AGI, is what I think. Is it the organic and human neuron we should model? I don't necessarily think so. Also. robotics + ML is a dead end to me. An amoeba that can evolve into something more complex, is perhaps what we should model.