4 ms·

> It’s hard to predict timelines for this kind of thing, and people are notoriously bad at it. Few would have predicted the results we’re seeing today in 2010.

by dtech 5y ago

> It’s hard to predict timelines for this kind of thing, and people are notoriously bad at it. Few would have predicted the results we’re seeing today in 2010. What would you expect to see in the years leading up to AGI? Does what we’re seeing look like failure? Few have predicted a reasonably-capable text-writing engine or automatic video face replacement, but many have predicted self-driving cars would have been readily available to consumers by now and semi-intelligent helper-robots being around. Just because unforeseen advancements have been made, does not mean that foreseen advancements come true.

jltsiren 5y ago
Automatic video face replacement always seemed an obvious application to me. I'm more surprised that the tools for it are still so rough. I guess we can thank social taboos for that. When I was a kid, I remember wondering how Soviets were obsessed with faking photos. A few years later, I saw Terminator 2 and realized that faking videos was also a thing. The tools for it would clearly get better and better over time. When I studied ML in the early 2000s, it seemed obvious that pattern recognition tasks such as image manipulation would be "easy" for computers, once we found the right approach and made the ML systems big enough. In the end, I decided not to pursue ML, because jobs were still scarce and I found discrete problems more interesting. That was probably the worst career mistake I've ever made.
exporectomy 5y ago
People tend to predict simple technological substitutes for human tasks rather than novel things. I suspect we won't get artificial humans because we'll end up not actually wanting that and getting something better instead. Just like we got cars instead of artificial horses.
- fossuser 5y ago
  AGI isn't really about artificial humans. It's about very good general problem solving software that's way beyond the capabilities of humans while not being aligned with human interests. Not because the software is evil, but because aligning values is an unsolved problem (humans aren't even totally aligned - and values also change). If you have an intelligence that's very good at achieving its goal and you don't have a good way to align its goal with human goals, you can very quickly get into trouble if that intelligence thinks much faster than you do. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pebbles-into-correct-heaps https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pe... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden-complexity-of-wishes https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no-fire-alarm-for-artificial-general-intelligence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...
greggman3 5y ago
self-driving cars are available to consumers now. Search for FSD on youtube and see all the consumers using their self driving cars. Or, watch the latest Veritasium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI
- pnt12 5y ago
  And yet all of them force you to keep your eyes on the road at all times or you can die. Can you honestly call that FSD?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - greggman3 5y ago
    #1 it's still beta. The point is to show the progress is real #2 see linked video, he sits in the backseat, there is no driver and no one to take control.
- kaba0 5y ago
  It’s as much FSD as my robot vacuum not hitting the wall… These are just overhyped drive assist tools that market themselves immorally as something they aren’t.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Tepix 5y ago
  If you can't go to sleep, the car is not fully self-driving
kaba0 5y ago
We used to think that machines would be bad at arithmetic and pure logical reasoning, and good at the more primitive animalistic ones, but it turns out the latter is a much harder problem. Also, self-driving cars were mostly hyped up by companies, FSD is quite obviously a hard problem, much closer to general intelligence than the average NN application.
- kittiepryde 5y ago
  When did we think that?

by dtech 5y ago

jltsiren 5y ago

Automatic video face replacement always seemed an obvious application to me. I'm more surprised that the tools for it are still so rough. I guess we can thank social taboos for that. When I was a kid, I remember wondering how Soviets were obsessed with faking photos. A few years later, I saw Terminator 2 and realized that faking videos was also a thing. The tools for it would clearly get better and better over time. When I studied ML in the early 2000s, it seemed obvious that pattern recognition tasks such as image manipulation would be "easy" for computers, once we found the right approach and made the ML systems big enough. In the end, I decided not to pursue ML, because jobs were still scarce and I found discrete problems more interesting. That was probably the worst career mistake I've ever made.

exporectomy 5y ago

People tend to predict simple technological substitutes for human tasks rather than novel things. I suspect we won't get artificial humans because we'll end up not actually wanting that and getting something better instead. Just like we got cars instead of artificial horses.

fossuser 5y ago
AGI isn't really about artificial humans. It's about very good general problem solving software that's way beyond the capabilities of humans while not being aligned with human interests. Not because the software is evil, but because aligning values is an unsolved problem (humans aren't even totally aligned - and values also change). If you have an intelligence that's very good at achieving its goal and you don't have a good way to align its goal with human goals, you can very quickly get into trouble if that intelligence thinks much faster than you do. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pebbles-into-correct-heaps https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pe... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden-complexity-of-wishes https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no-fire-alarm-for-artificial-general-intelligence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...

greggman3 5y ago

self-driving cars are available to consumers now. Search for FSD on youtube and see all the consumers using their self driving cars. Or, watch the latest Veritasium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI

pnt12 5y ago
And yet all of them force you to keep your eyes on the road at all times or you can die. Can you honestly call that FSD?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- greggman3 5y ago
  #1 it's still beta. The point is to show the progress is real #2 see linked video, he sits in the backseat, there is no driver and no one to take control.
kaba0 5y ago
It’s as much FSD as my robot vacuum not hitting the wall… These are just overhyped drive assist tools that market themselves immorally as something they aren’t.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Tepix 5y ago
If you can't go to sleep, the car is not fully self-driving

kaba0 5y ago

We used to think that machines would be bad at arithmetic and pure logical reasoning, and good at the more primitive animalistic ones, but it turns out the latter is a much harder problem. Also, self-driving cars were mostly hyped up by companies, FSD is quite obviously a hard problem, much closer to general intelligence than the average NN application.

kittiepryde 5y ago
When did we think that?