3 ms·

> The speed at which AlphaStar overtook previous AIs seems to me to be nearly unprecedented in AI research In pretty much any field, top performing humans are

> The speed at which AlphaStar overtook previous AIs seems to me to be nearly unprecedented in AI research In pretty much any field, top performing humans are at the physical limitation level, you will not see any sort of breakthrough, just incremental improvement. Machines on the other side, can be scaled arbitrarily. Once you've built a small crane, you can build even increasing ones, it's just a function of money and interest. Some say that intelligence is not like that, that it can't be scaled arbitrarily. But the burden of proof is on them, especially given the consequences if it can.

TremendousJudge 7y ago
>Machines on the other side, can be scaled arbitrarily. Once you've built a small crane, you can build even increasing ones, it's just a function of money and interest. It doesn't matter how much money or interest we have, but right now it isn't technically feasible to build a 36000 km tall crane (also known as a space elevator). Humanity simply couldn't get it done even if we poured all our current resources into that project. It isn't physically impossible, but such a behemoth has requirements that current materials science cannot meet. Building tall cranes generates useful know-how for a space elevator, but it's a really different problem, not just a matter of resources. Following the analogy, a general purpose AI simply isn't a bigger Deep Blue or AlphaGo; it's probably something different that requires knowledge that we currently don't have. Sure, building Deep Blue and AlphaGo most likely generated part of that money, but that doesn't mean we have everything we need. You can argue that is simply also money and interest, and that's true, but it's not in the same as building a 10 meter crane and a 20 meter crane.
- dannypgh 7y ago
  > Following the analogy, a general purpose AI simply isn't a bigger Deep Blue or AlphaGo; it's probably something different that requires knowledge that we currently don't have. I agree with this, but it isn't clear to me that a general AI will have a significantly different impact on society than a world where task-specific well performing AIs are easy for anyone to develop. Sure, a general AI has a set of properties that are really fascinating to discuss and debate (including what is consciousness and whether AIs should be given rights), and perhaps a general AI is required for doomsday computers-taking-over scenarios, but the impacts that AI will have on our economy and politics don't require general AI.
  - TremendousJudge 7y ago
    You're right. Of course, we're not yet in a world where _task-specific well performing AIs are easy for anyone to develop_, but we're getting there and looks feasible. A 500 meter crane. However, I disagree that the impact is the same. I think that the difference between a lot of specific jobs being automated and the world being run by a MULTIVAC world optimizer is pretty big.

TremendousJudge 7y ago

>Machines on the other side, can be scaled arbitrarily. Once you've built a small crane, you can build even increasing ones, it's just a function of money and interest. It doesn't matter how much money or interest we have, but right now it isn't technically feasible to build a 36000 km tall crane (also known as a space elevator). Humanity simply couldn't get it done even if we poured all our current resources into that project. It isn't physically impossible, but such a behemoth has requirements that current materials science cannot meet. Building tall cranes generates useful know-how for a space elevator, but it's a really different problem, not just a matter of resources. Following the analogy, a general purpose AI simply isn't a bigger Deep Blue or AlphaGo; it's probably something different that requires knowledge that we currently don't have. Sure, building Deep Blue and AlphaGo most likely generated part of that money, but that doesn't mean we have everything we need. You can argue that is simply also money and interest, and that's true, but it's not in the same as building a 10 meter crane and a 20 meter crane.

dannypgh 7y ago
> Following the analogy, a general purpose AI simply isn't a bigger Deep Blue or AlphaGo; it's probably something different that requires knowledge that we currently don't have. I agree with this, but it isn't clear to me that a general AI will have a significantly different impact on society than a world where task-specific well performing AIs are easy for anyone to develop. Sure, a general AI has a set of properties that are really fascinating to discuss and debate (including what is consciousness and whether AIs should be given rights), and perhaps a general AI is required for doomsday computers-taking-over scenarios, but the impacts that AI will have on our economy and politics don't require general AI.
- TremendousJudge 7y ago
  You're right. Of course, we're not yet in a world where _task-specific well performing AIs are easy for anyone to develop_, but we're getting there and looks feasible. A 500 meter crane. However, I disagree that the impact is the same. I think that the difference between a lot of specific jobs being automated and the world being run by a MULTIVAC world optimizer is pretty big.