6 ms·

> Human-level AI will likely be practical this century. Given how far away from that goal we are now, after 85 previous years of research, I would not hold my

by sampo 12y ago

> Human-level AI will likely be practical this century. Given how far away from that goal we are now, after 85 previous years of research, I would not hold my breath for reaching that goal in the next 85 years.

saalweachter 12y ago
While I'm in the camp of "people who say 'X will happen in the next Y years' are really saying 'X will happen before I die'", I think it is unreasonable to treat the last 50-85 years as a failure for AI. There are two things holding back AI (which from a singularity-standpoint just means "a machine capable of general problem-solving", and not "a machine possessing the ineffable characteristics of human consciousness"). First, we don't know how. Second, we might not have the computational capacity. While we still don't know how, the bar is getting lower and lower as time goes on. Increasing computational capacity means that we can start with worse and worse initial versions of a general intelligence. Maybe a really special genius could write a general problem solver which ran on a 386 (even if it lacked the self awareness to feel the pain of running on a 386). Maybe we're too dumb to ever write a general problem solver even if we had an infinately fast computer with unlimited memory. But even if programmers have made no progress since the 1960s, we are definitely not in the same position.
- mcguire 12y ago
  "While I'm in the camp of "people who say 'X will happen in the next Y years' are really saying 'X will happen before I die'"..." That depends on who is saying it. I've noticed that when actual researchers say, "We hope this will provide a treatment for reticularly homicidal brain-worms within 5 years", they mean they have no idea if or when any such practical material benefits will appear. If they say, "We will be able to get effectively unlimited amounts of energy from russet potatos within 20 years," they mean they don't believe it's ever going to happen. If the difficulty is exponential, as I rather expect it to be (in my own completely unfounded opinion), then lowering the bar a given amount doesn't help much. And as far as increasing computational capacity goes, we're already deep into the realm where communication costs outweigh actual computational costs, which makes it a whole different ball game going forward. If you want a further speculation, I suspect that modern statistical methods like those behind th' Goog, self-driving cars, and what-not will not get too much closer to a super intelligence than conventional heuristic search. They're capable of doing a lot of things easily, that only humans could do heretofore, but they're not actually more powerful. So, "a machine capable of general problem-solving" is easily conceivable in the same sense that you are capable of general problem solving, but I can't see a singularity on the other side of that.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/678/ http://xkcd.com/678/.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  > (even if it lacked the self awareness to feel the pain of running on a 386) Now we know the real motivation behind pretty much every sci-fi storyline involving AI revolts.
baddox 12y ago
How do you even quantify "how far away from that goal we are now"? Do you have a percentage?
e12e 12y ago
2014-2*85=1860 -- so I take it your statements means that discovering AI in the next 85 years would be a bigger change/achievement than the changes we see in the world today from the world of 1929, that was founded on work started in 1860? So, having a look at wikipedia, we find: "Inspired by Babbage's difference engine plans, Per Georg Scheutz built several difference engines from 1855 onwards, one of which was sold to the British government in 1859." -- that's very convenient. We can cheat a little, and say that in 1929, there'd been about 86 years worth of research into computing -- and so by extension, achieving AI by 2100 is a greater feat than the NSAs new data center was as seen from 1929? Perhaps. Makes for some interesting thought experiments.

by sampo 12y ago

saalweachter 12y ago

While I'm in the camp of "people who say 'X will happen in the next Y years' are really saying 'X will happen before I die'", I think it is unreasonable to treat the last 50-85 years as a failure for AI. There are two things holding back AI (which from a singularity-standpoint just means "a machine capable of general problem-solving", and not "a machine possessing the ineffable characteristics of human consciousness"). First, we don't know how. Second, we might not have the computational capacity. While we still don't know how, the bar is getting lower and lower as time goes on. Increasing computational capacity means that we can start with worse and worse initial versions of a general intelligence. Maybe a really special genius could write a general problem solver which ran on a 386 (even if it lacked the self awareness to feel the pain of running on a 386). Maybe we're too dumb to ever write a general problem solver even if we had an infinately fast computer with unlimited memory. But even if programmers have made no progress since the 1960s, we are definitely not in the same position.

mcguire 12y ago
"While I'm in the camp of "people who say 'X will happen in the next Y years' are really saying 'X will happen before I die'"..." That depends on who is saying it. I've noticed that when actual researchers say, "We hope this will provide a treatment for reticularly homicidal brain-worms within 5 years", they mean they have no idea if or when any such practical material benefits will appear. If they say, "We will be able to get effectively unlimited amounts of energy from russet potatos within 20 years," they mean they don't believe it's ever going to happen. If the difficulty is exponential, as I rather expect it to be (in my own completely unfounded opinion), then lowering the bar a given amount doesn't help much. And as far as increasing computational capacity goes, we're already deep into the realm where communication costs outweigh actual computational costs, which makes it a whole different ball game going forward. If you want a further speculation, I suspect that modern statistical methods like those behind th' Goog, self-driving cars, and what-not will not get too much closer to a super intelligence than conventional heuristic search. They're capable of doing a lot of things easily, that only humans could do heretofore, but they're not actually more powerful. So, "a machine capable of general problem-solving" is easily conceivable in the same sense that you are capable of general problem solving, but I can't see a singularity on the other side of that.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/678/ http://xkcd.com/678/.
yellowapple 12y ago
> (even if it lacked the self awareness to feel the pain of running on a 386) Now we know the real motivation behind pretty much every sci-fi storyline involving AI revolts.

baddox 12y ago

How do you even quantify "how far away from that goal we are now"? Do you have a percentage?

e12e 12y ago

2014-2*85=1860 -- so I take it your statements means that discovering AI in the next 85 years would be a bigger change/achievement than the changes we see in the world today from the world of 1929, that was founded on work started in 1860? So, having a look at wikipedia, we find: "Inspired by Babbage's difference engine plans, Per Georg Scheutz built several difference engines from 1855 onwards, one of which was sold to the British government in 1859." -- that's very convenient. We can cheat a little, and say that in 1929, there'd been about 86 years worth of research into computing -- and so by extension, achieving AI by 2100 is a greater feat than the NSAs new data center was as seen from 1929? Perhaps. Makes for some interesting thought experiments.