3 ms·

I really doubt we will have the capability of building "a machine in the likeness of a human mind" in my lifetime. Present AI systems are essentially just funct

I really doubt we will have the capability of building "a machine in the likeness of a human mind" in my lifetime. Present AI systems are essentially just function fitting. Building big probabilistic systems that we optimize with loads of training data. This is a far, far cry from the "strong AI" that people are so afraid of. I really think that people writing these sorts of pieces have an understanding of AI that's more rooted in fiction than engineering. It's interesting to ponder how we should go about building and interacting with "strong AI", and questioning whether we should even build it in the first place. But I really don't think any detailed moral frameworks can be built when we have no real idea of what a "strong AI" would look like. Also, it's worth reminding people that in the Dune universe the Butlerian Jihad led to millennia of stagnation and control of society by a narrow elite: The Spacing Guild, the Bene Gesserit, and the Landsraad.

Tenoke 5y ago
I dont really get how people see the progress of the last 10 or even 5 years and then imply that things won't improve all that much further than that for a whole generation.
- adventured 5y ago
  It's just the pattern of people camping into one or the other extreme, which tends to occur with every topic. Nuance and depth is mentally expensive, whereas extremes are trivially easy by comparison and super fast (because you can discard so much explanation, discussion, thought and reality-binding once you decide to pursue fantasy). It's identical to: AI sucks vs AI is amazing. Well, no, it's a complicated subject and always will be. Those extremes snippets are worthless bumpersticker-thought. AI will very rapidly conquer all, becoming a practical Earth deity in the span of decades. AI will disappoint perpetually, progressing at a snail's pace for decades to come. The truth is dramatically more likely to be inbetween the extremes, and going there intellectually doesn't lend itself very well to short comments.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  The oldest publication from DeepMind is 2011, just for a post in the ground. Yes, I know neural networks are older than that. It would be a little disappointing if we could even guess how an AI system in 2040 would work, I don't think many people in 2000 would have guessed neural networks would be the most useful type in regular use in 2020. In my field of expertise there are grad students today taking classes on topics that when I finished my PhD in 2010 no one had heard of yet. Literal cases of people finding closed form solutions for equations that we had to solve with approximation before.
- guscost 5y ago
  You could have said the same exact thing about aerospace in 1970.
- plorkyeran 5y ago
  Most areas of study up being S-curves, not exponential gains forever.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
For those that study the human brain, my understanding is that it kind of already is “just form fitting.” Ie, there are subsystems that just do basic stuff, and together each of these systems eventually add up to a prediction system (consciousness) that is in service to the rest of the brain, which in turn has a mutualistic relationship with the rest of the body. In this sense, “strong AI” already exists, with or without computers, as a global ecosystem driving towards…nothing in particular. Insomuch as computer systems augment the ability of humanity to continue to reproduce long-term in a mutualistic way, those computer system will themselves survive. You might say, “but why wouldn’t the computer find a more efficient path, foregoing humanity?” Well, humanity supports the infrastructure for computers, and computers support the humans supporting the infrastructure, then this is already local minima. Arriving at a different reality for “strong AI” will be the result of a random walk tending towards components that are capable of existing in the long term, aka “evolution.”
pmoriarty 5y ago
"I really doubt we will have the capability of building "a machine in the likeness of a human mind" in my lifetime." It's really hard to predict the future. Look at what a horrible job most people did a hundred years ago (even 50 years ago) predicting what life was going to be like today. Many people did not believe man would ever walk on the moon (even right up to the time it happened), same with desegregation and the fall of the Soviet Union, for starters. Science and technology are especially hard to predict, as many advances are a result of accidents and surprising discoveries. I wouldn't write off strong AI, though I'm not sure it'll happen as a mimicry of the human mind.

Tenoke 5y ago

I dont really get how people see the progress of the last 10 or even 5 years and then imply that things won't improve all that much further than that for a whole generation.

adventured 5y ago
It's just the pattern of people camping into one or the other extreme, which tends to occur with every topic. Nuance and depth is mentally expensive, whereas extremes are trivially easy by comparison and super fast (because you can discard so much explanation, discussion, thought and reality-binding once you decide to pursue fantasy). It's identical to: AI sucks vs AI is amazing. Well, no, it's a complicated subject and always will be. Those extremes snippets are worthless bumpersticker-thought. AI will very rapidly conquer all, becoming a practical Earth deity in the span of decades. AI will disappoint perpetually, progressing at a snail's pace for decades to come. The truth is dramatically more likely to be inbetween the extremes, and going there intellectually doesn't lend itself very well to short comments.
neltnerb 5y ago
The oldest publication from DeepMind is 2011, just for a post in the ground. Yes, I know neural networks are older than that. It would be a little disappointing if we could even guess how an AI system in 2040 would work, I don't think many people in 2000 would have guessed neural networks would be the most useful type in regular use in 2020. In my field of expertise there are grad students today taking classes on topics that when I finished my PhD in 2010 no one had heard of yet. Literal cases of people finding closed form solutions for equations that we had to solve with approximation before.
guscost 5y ago
You could have said the same exact thing about aerospace in 1970.
plorkyeran 5y ago
Most areas of study up being S-curves, not exponential gains forever.

IggleSniggle 5y ago

For those that study the human brain, my understanding is that it kind of already is “just form fitting.” Ie, there are subsystems that just do basic stuff, and together each of these systems eventually add up to a prediction system (consciousness) that is in service to the rest of the brain, which in turn has a mutualistic relationship with the rest of the body. In this sense, “strong AI” already exists, with or without computers, as a global ecosystem driving towards…nothing in particular. Insomuch as computer systems augment the ability of humanity to continue to reproduce long-term in a mutualistic way, those computer system will themselves survive. You might say, “but why wouldn’t the computer find a more efficient path, foregoing humanity?” Well, humanity supports the infrastructure for computers, and computers support the humans supporting the infrastructure, then this is already local minima. Arriving at a different reality for “strong AI” will be the result of a random walk tending towards components that are capable of existing in the long term, aka “evolution.”

pmoriarty 5y ago

"I really doubt we will have the capability of building "a machine in the likeness of a human mind" in my lifetime." It's really hard to predict the future. Look at what a horrible job most people did a hundred years ago (even 50 years ago) predicting what life was going to be like today. Many people did not believe man would ever walk on the moon (even right up to the time it happened), same with desegregation and the fall of the Soviet Union, for starters. Science and technology are especially hard to predict, as many advances are a result of accidents and surprising discoveries. I wouldn't write off strong AI, though I'm not sure it'll happen as a mimicry of the human mind.