3 ms·

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

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.
  - pron 7y ago
    We can model some aspects of insect behavior. The simulation even looks convincing at first glance (just as simple "AI" looks convincing with a superficial examination of a conversation or text-generation). But we have not been able to fully model the behavior of, say, a bee (which may be enough to solve self-driving cars and then some).
    - iguy 7y ago
      Exactly. > they tend to follow brownian motion in 3D Well, their entire neural system exists to make deviations from Brownian motion. That's the whole point of being an animal not a plant. And doing it well is very very subtle. First steps towards modelling such behavior can be super-interesting science, not a terrible use of time at all. They can capture a lot of truth about how it works. But like self-driving cars, the thing that kills you is usually a weird edge case, not the basic thing.

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.
- pron 7y ago
  We can model some aspects of insect behavior. The simulation even looks convincing at first glance (just as simple "AI" looks convincing with a superficial examination of a conversation or text-generation). But we have not been able to fully model the behavior of, say, a bee (which may be enough to solve self-driving cars and then some).
  - iguy 7y ago
    Exactly. > they tend to follow brownian motion in 3D Well, their entire neural system exists to make deviations from Brownian motion. That's the whole point of being an animal not a plant. And doing it well is very very subtle. First steps towards modelling such behavior can be super-interesting science, not a terrible use of time at all. They can capture a lot of truth about how it works. But like self-driving cars, the thing that kills you is usually a weird edge case, not the basic thing.