5 ms·

> Is DL a reasonable path to strong AI? Arguably, it is the only path to strong AI (if you believe that it is even possible).

karpierz 5y ago
Of course strong AI is possible; most people can make one with 18 years and a willing partner. It just doesn't scale.
- spyder 5y ago
  That's Natural Intelligence not Artificial Intelligence.
  - okaram 5y ago
    Well ... Artificial means created by humans, right? ;)
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Naturally, but we’re going for artificial humor today.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- gcheong 5y ago
  Also very nondeterministic
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    It’s a feature, not a bug.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > most people can make one with 18 years and a willing partner Well, there’s your scaling problem. It should only take an instant to create a Strong AI (if you believe that Strong AI can be created). What’s Weak about a Strong AI that takes a couple of years to make but pees on the floor all the time?
- harry8 5y ago
  > It just doesn't scale. On what planet? I can give you about 7 billion reasons why it isn't this one.
  - samplatt 5y ago
    That's just 7 billion reasons why it can't (or at least, doesn't) scale larger than ~3lbs.
  - salawat 5y ago
    It doesn't scale in the "I want twice as many, right now, to use, abuse, and discard without guilt or strings attached". 9 women do not a baby in 1 month make. Once you have said bab(y|ies), you then have the inconvenience of them having a will of their own, you have to support and eventually pay them, and dear god, make too many of them and they might even just throw you away instead of going in the direction you want. That kind of not scaling. I mean... If no one else is willing to say it, I'll call a spade a spade; because that is precisely the major draw of the computer as ecpnomic/logistical lubricant. Doing jobs of people, but not getting paid or having to be accounted for as one.
    - izzygonzalez 5y ago
      If we manage to create an artificial sentience then we need to legislate and protect their rights. AGI won't be a free lunch.
      - drdeca 5y ago
        Just because something is AGI probably needn't imply that it is sapient. It might have no internal experience, no feeling of desire, only a utility function which it optimizes.
        krageon 5y ago
        This reasoning is why it will need rights. If it doesn't, people thinking these thoughts (which are impossible to answer, like they are for every other potential sapience. Not just AGI) will abuse that reasoning to create yet another creative modern form of slavery.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  That's the last step in a training process that took a half-billion years, if we count from the first neurons (this is not, of course, an argument against the feasibility of strong AI.)
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    One small step for bosons, one giant leap for consciousness.
  - Planktonne 5y ago
    Every DL system ever made is also the last step in a training process that took half a billion years. It's not reasonable to discount the training of parents/predecessors only when we're talking about machines; they still would not exist without them.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      There is a slight ambiguity in 'last', which might mean either 'most recent' or 'final'. The difference here is that while karpierz's last step is, at least for now, the final one in a process producing a strong, generalized, self-awarely-conscious theory-of-mind-holding intelligent agent, the evolution of DL systems has not yet done so.
- auntienomen 5y ago
  It can be partly parallelized, by staggering.
- jahewson 5y ago
  It’s embarrassingly parallel.
dkislyuk 5y ago
What is the argument for it being the only path? We have a pretty poor understanding of how the human brain (our only "Strong AI" evidence) learns, but the one approach that has been pretty definitively ruled out is large-scale backpropagation in the style that most deep learning pursues today. Maybe backprop is a true alternative approach to AGI, but it's hard to be completely convinced of this.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Have you read Parallel Distributed Processing by McClelland and Rumelhart? I haven’t finished reading it, but they make the case that if humans are conscious, then PDP is the way Strong AI will be figured out. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processing-volume-1 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processi...
  - garymarcus 5y ago
    I link it to it in the Nautilus article at the top of thread, and to my thesis work which challenged PDP as a model of children’s learning of the English past tense; more generally the Nautilus article is in some sense my answer to that book.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      Just finished reading the article, interesting points. I agree that there’s too much emphasis on the “robot”, but coming from an academic background in mathematics and psychology (and biology), I cannot take PDP as anything other than “this is how brains work”. Granted, half of PDP, the book, is a series of examples of “ways it might work” from 40 years ago or so, but the other half is about fundamentally tying the psychology to the brain through parallel distributed processing as a conceptual framework. In that sense, I don’t think PDP can be refuted any more than token economies or political polling can be refuted. Thoughts? In the meantime, I will bookmark your thesis for perusal.

karpierz 5y ago

Of course strong AI is possible; most people can make one with 18 years and a willing partner. It just doesn't scale.

spyder 5y ago
That's Natural Intelligence not Artificial Intelligence.
- okaram 5y ago
  Well ... Artificial means created by humans, right? ;)
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Naturally, but we’re going for artificial humor today.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gcheong 5y ago
Also very nondeterministic
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  It’s a feature, not a bug.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> most people can make one with 18 years and a willing partner Well, there’s your scaling problem. It should only take an instant to create a Strong AI (if you believe that Strong AI can be created). What’s Weak about a Strong AI that takes a couple of years to make but pees on the floor all the time?
harry8 5y ago
> It just doesn't scale. On what planet? I can give you about 7 billion reasons why it isn't this one.
- samplatt 5y ago
  That's just 7 billion reasons why it can't (or at least, doesn't) scale larger than ~3lbs.
- salawat 5y ago
  It doesn't scale in the "I want twice as many, right now, to use, abuse, and discard without guilt or strings attached". 9 women do not a baby in 1 month make. Once you have said bab(y|ies), you then have the inconvenience of them having a will of their own, you have to support and eventually pay them, and dear god, make too many of them and they might even just throw you away instead of going in the direction you want. That kind of not scaling. I mean... If no one else is willing to say it, I'll call a spade a spade; because that is precisely the major draw of the computer as ecpnomic/logistical lubricant. Doing jobs of people, but not getting paid or having to be accounted for as one.
  - izzygonzalez 5y ago
    If we manage to create an artificial sentience then we need to legislate and protect their rights. AGI won't be a free lunch.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      Just because something is AGI probably needn't imply that it is sapient. It might have no internal experience, no feeling of desire, only a utility function which it optimizes.
      - krageon 5y ago
        This reasoning is why it will need rights. If it doesn't, people thinking these thoughts (which are impossible to answer, like they are for every other potential sapience. Not just AGI) will abuse that reasoning to create yet another creative modern form of slavery.
mannykannot 5y ago
That's the last step in a training process that took a half-billion years, if we count from the first neurons (this is not, of course, an argument against the feasibility of strong AI.)
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  One small step for bosons, one giant leap for consciousness.
- Planktonne 5y ago
  Every DL system ever made is also the last step in a training process that took half a billion years. It's not reasonable to discount the training of parents/predecessors only when we're talking about machines; they still would not exist without them.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    There is a slight ambiguity in 'last', which might mean either 'most recent' or 'final'. The difference here is that while karpierz's last step is, at least for now, the final one in a process producing a strong, generalized, self-awarely-conscious theory-of-mind-holding intelligent agent, the evolution of DL systems has not yet done so.
auntienomen 5y ago
It can be partly parallelized, by staggering.
jahewson 5y ago
It’s embarrassingly parallel.

dkislyuk 5y ago

What is the argument for it being the only path? We have a pretty poor understanding of how the human brain (our only "Strong AI" evidence) learns, but the one approach that has been pretty definitively ruled out is large-scale backpropagation in the style that most deep learning pursues today. Maybe backprop is a true alternative approach to AGI, but it's hard to be completely convinced of this.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
Have you read Parallel Distributed Processing by McClelland and Rumelhart? I haven’t finished reading it, but they make the case that if humans are conscious, then PDP is the way Strong AI will be figured out. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processing-volume-1 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processi...
- garymarcus 5y ago
  I link it to it in the Nautilus article at the top of thread, and to my thesis work which challenged PDP as a model of children’s learning of the English past tense; more generally the Nautilus article is in some sense my answer to that book.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Just finished reading the article, interesting points. I agree that there’s too much emphasis on the “robot”, but coming from an academic background in mathematics and psychology (and biology), I cannot take PDP as anything other than “this is how brains work”. Granted, half of PDP, the book, is a series of examples of “ways it might work” from 40 years ago or so, but the other half is about fundamentally tying the psychology to the brain through parallel distributed processing as a conceptual framework. In that sense, I don’t think PDP can be refuted any more than token economies or political polling can be refuted. Thoughts? In the meantime, I will bookmark your thesis for perusal.