7 ms·
>Would people want a chip which is basically unpredictable -- the performance can vary up by tens of %, they have to be re-trained periodically to prevent data
by waste_monk 6y ago
>Would people want a chip which is basically unpredictable -- the performance can vary up by tens of %, they have to be re-trained periodically to prevent data loss, and there is no way to load pre-trained network? I doubt it. Maybe there is an extremely narrow use case, but I do not see it in the mainstream devices.
Human brains have the same problems and seem to be fairly popular.
- amelius 6y agoTrue, but they're hard to do experiments with, which is useful if you're building such a brain.
- jokethrowaway 6y agoIf the trade-off between energy-cheap human-like processing and our computers is reliability, it's definitely worth doing. If we had unlimited human like processing, we would basically have unlimited slaves without affecting biological organism similar to us. Not to mention, it's worth doing it just for having 100000 times cheaper machine learning.
- birdyrooster 6y agoOh boy I can’t wait for the unlimited slaves
- MichaelZuo 6y agoWell bounded by the expanding co-moving light cone of mass-energy, barring FTL travel.
- ddingus 6y agoDon't worry, we will take short cuts, because greed and ignorance, leaving them with agency we will not have accounted for. Should be exciting.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoIs the better alternative, to create actual slaves? Intelligent feeling beings that we put governors on, like a Thrall shock-collar from Star Trek, so they don't get to uppity? Because that's a horror show of its own right there.
- ddingus 6y ago[Goes with morbid flow here] Perhaps! If we get it right, and they are in fact beings, there may not be better alternatives. May always end in conflict. I say that because a core aspect of beings, is that they "be", and that boils down to agency of some kind. Negative reinforcement runs in conflict to all that and warrants a response, from the oppressed beings point of view. Us being creators will only go so far. John Varley proposed an interesting solution to this in his Gaea series. A slave was created by connecting all their pleasure centers to an area on their forehead. Any touch other than their own triggered pleasure so intense it is worth pretty much anything to experience.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoOk that's not a shock collar, but creepily similar to keeping folks drugged into compliance. Also an ethical hole. I'm not sure what the solution is. Intelligent but not self-aware?
- ddingus 6y agoYeah the whole thing is a mess. I don't think there is a solution. Things that are intelligent in some fashion but not self-aware are machines. Edit: We will end up making really good machines, and they will present us with the illusion of agency. That's all a good thing. I want agents for a variety of things. Most of us do, and or would benefit from them. But, none of that actually requires we make other beings. Once we do that, they are beings! They will have agency and all the other stuff we associate with sentience. And the way I see all that is they are peers. They may be simpler than us, like the animals are, or more than us, with obvious and to many, concerning implications. When we advance machines, no shocks, extreme pleasure, type means and methods are required. And, the price of that is something almost aware, but lacking agency. Everything pivots on agency. Should we create something having it, the idea is it can do hard work for us because it will be capable of it like we are. Otherwise, we have to do all the hard work and end up with something able to do more work, but the investment cost is high. Running costs are much lower. New hard work = another significant investment. I, nor anyone I believe, can tell us how agency, the self, being aware, and all that intertwine to present as intelligence, as a being of some sort. Answers come slow, and I fear the tests needed to get at them more quickly are ethics bombs all over the place. We want to make that happen somehow on the assumption we will get a huge return and that because of the potential we know intelligence can bring to the table. It all seems an awful lot like, "wants cake to eat it too" at this point in time.
- avs733 6y agoNot really... Psychology does this all the time. Outcomes can be described as distributions as much as they can binaries. It just takes a change in mindset.
- MauranKilom 6y agoHuman brains are also ridiculously expensive to copy and distribute. Not to mention that you need an extremely loose definition of "copy".
- danw1979 6y agoMe and the wife made a couple and whilst they aren't cheap, I wouldn't say they're outrageously costly to make/run. Not particularly reliable though... and yes, we seem to be having great difficulty copying the required information into them.
- avs733 6y agoI'm in the first trimester of the manufacturing process, excited but also having some sticker shock at day care options. Never built something so initially unstable that ends up Turing complete before.
- Datenstrom 6y ago> Not to mention that you need an extremely loose definition of "copy". Makes me wonder, with a nearly perfect simulation for a reinforcement learning agent and a human brain or equivalent architecture, would you be able to make exact copies. Assuming the PRNGs and other settings were deterministic. Now that would be an interesting and controversial experiment.
- Veedrac 6y agoHuman brains try really hard not to be analogue.
- ddingus 6y agoMy thoughts exactly. People want what is in our heads. Which is it? Some idealized, and by nature limited sub set or idea, or the real deal?
- tartoran 6y ago> Human brains have the same problems and seem to be fairly popular. Not only that but I'm sure there's a usecase where they are more suitable, we just haven't found it.