4 ms·

The closer to a real inflection point in machine intelligence we get the more articles like this we will see. It's human nature to double down on scepticism whe

The closer to a real inflection point in machine intelligence we get the more articles like this we will see. It's human nature to double down on scepticism when things start to change.

jqpabc123 6y ago
You missed the point which is --- nothing has changed. Computers are just as dumb as they've always been. They can't grow or reproduce or learn on their own or optimize themselves for survival or expansion. And noone has any idea how to endow them with these capabilities. We're just waiting and hoping it somehow happens on it's own. This is about as naive as waiting for your car to drive itself. It is just not how the universe works.
- vlthr 6y ago
  I think the author is right to argue against the claim that “the singularity must happen eventually”, but I’m not sure how applicable your observations are to the question of whether an AI singularity could happen, or whether we should be planning for that contingency. Today, progress in machine learning is almost entirely empirical, with limited theoretical advances following later to make sense of the empirical findings. Our theoretical underpinnings are so weak we don’t even have a rough estimate of how much harder it is to make a self-improving AGI than e.g. GPT-3. Maybe it’s many orders of magnitude harder, and not even remotely solvable by taking iterative steps from where we are now. Maybe it’s just one unifying theoretical advance away. As for waiting and hoping it happens on its own, that’s not a great description of what’s happening. A huge number of people (possibly too many, leading to short-term incentives) are trying to make improvements in any way they can think of. Progress is happening at a staggering pace —- we just don’t have any idea how much progress is needed to reach the goal of AGI.
  - jqpabc123 6y ago
    In the real world, most advancements are engineered. Happy accidents have occurred but nothing on the order of AGI. There are a huge number of people involved but as you point out, it is mostly empirical. In other words, there is no real plan --- we're just hoping for a happy accident.
- rytill 6y ago
  Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? It’s because, if you admit there is even a slight possibility of progress being made, or future potential, suddenly you’re in the other camp - because it’s suddenly quite important to think about the ramifications. And you have self-categorized that you are not a part of all that mumbo-jumbo. So, retroactively, you have to think there is no possibility. It is demonstrably false that no progress is being made. I can type `imagine “a bluebird”` and my computer generates one. Many people listen to AI generated music now. More still are directed to artists they like by one. Spot is incredible. Compared to 10 years ago we are in a different world of progress here. It might take a while, but it’s coming.
  - jqpabc123 6y ago
    Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? The fact that you feel compelled to ask that question suggests to me that you won't approve of the answer. What currently passes for "learning" is mostly just data collection and pattern matching --- as strictly prescribed by software. This is certainly useful but any sign of "intelligence" in this process still resides in the mind of the software developer --- not the computer. Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
    - rytill 6y ago
      Wouldn’t it be more predictive to think in terms of capabilities to track rate of improvement? You’re never going to see any improvement by your metric if you don’t want to, it’s unfalsifiable. Your second statement (if it’s possible) sounds like a “no true intelligence” argument. It’s definitely possible since we exist but might take any number of years. Your first statement (don’t know how to build it): We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. I’m not saying we will completely not understand it either! Just that a partial state of understanding like what we are working with permanently, may be enough. And some people do have ideas about how to do this. Intelligence is anti-formal-understanding. People have formal models of intelligence and they’re totally impractical. “True” intelligence has messy heuristics everywhere and was evolved naturally.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  I didn't miss the point. I just think it's completely incorrect. For the AI is dumb crowd the argument is essentially an ever receding no true Scotsman fallacy.

The closer to a real inflection point in machine intelligence we get the more articles like this we will see. It's human nature to double down on scepticism when things start to change.

jqpabc123 6y ago

You missed the point which is --- nothing has changed. Computers are just as dumb as they've always been. They can't grow or reproduce or learn on their own or optimize themselves for survival or expansion. And noone has any idea how to endow them with these capabilities. We're just waiting and hoping it somehow happens on it's own. This is about as naive as waiting for your car to drive itself. It is just not how the universe works.

vlthr 6y ago
I think the author is right to argue against the claim that “the singularity must happen eventually”, but I’m not sure how applicable your observations are to the question of whether an AI singularity could happen, or whether we should be planning for that contingency. Today, progress in machine learning is almost entirely empirical, with limited theoretical advances following later to make sense of the empirical findings. Our theoretical underpinnings are so weak we don’t even have a rough estimate of how much harder it is to make a self-improving AGI than e.g. GPT-3. Maybe it’s many orders of magnitude harder, and not even remotely solvable by taking iterative steps from where we are now. Maybe it’s just one unifying theoretical advance away. As for waiting and hoping it happens on its own, that’s not a great description of what’s happening. A huge number of people (possibly too many, leading to short-term incentives) are trying to make improvements in any way they can think of. Progress is happening at a staggering pace —- we just don’t have any idea how much progress is needed to reach the goal of AGI.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  In the real world, most advancements are engineered. Happy accidents have occurred but nothing on the order of AGI. There are a huge number of people involved but as you point out, it is mostly empirical. In other words, there is no real plan --- we're just hoping for a happy accident.
rytill 6y ago
Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? It’s because, if you admit there is even a slight possibility of progress being made, or future potential, suddenly you’re in the other camp - because it’s suddenly quite important to think about the ramifications. And you have self-categorized that you are not a part of all that mumbo-jumbo. So, retroactively, you have to think there is no possibility. It is demonstrably false that no progress is being made. I can type `imagine “a bluebird”` and my computer generates one. Many people listen to AI generated music now. More still are directed to artists they like by one. Spot is incredible. Compared to 10 years ago we are in a different world of progress here. It might take a while, but it’s coming.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? The fact that you feel compelled to ask that question suggests to me that you won't approve of the answer. What currently passes for "learning" is mostly just data collection and pattern matching --- as strictly prescribed by software. This is certainly useful but any sign of "intelligence" in this process still resides in the mind of the software developer --- not the computer. Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
  - rytill 6y ago
    Wouldn’t it be more predictive to think in terms of capabilities to track rate of improvement? You’re never going to see any improvement by your metric if you don’t want to, it’s unfalsifiable. Your second statement (if it’s possible) sounds like a “no true intelligence” argument. It’s definitely possible since we exist but might take any number of years. Your first statement (don’t know how to build it): We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. I’m not saying we will completely not understand it either! Just that a partial state of understanding like what we are working with permanently, may be enough. And some people do have ideas about how to do this. Intelligence is anti-formal-understanding. People have formal models of intelligence and they’re totally impractical. “True” intelligence has messy heuristics everywhere and was evolved naturally.
plutonorm 6y ago
I didn't miss the point. I just think it's completely incorrect. For the AI is dumb crowd the argument is essentially an ever receding no true Scotsman fallacy.