5 ms·

We'll figure something out when we get there. What I found quite annoying lately (more than usual) is that there is a lot of "what if machines, terminator, bla

We'll figure something out when we get there. What I found quite annoying lately (more than usual) is that there is a lot of "what if machines, terminator, bla bla bla death! destruction!". I'm not sure if it's the recent developments with the deep neural nets, maybe it is.. Maybe it's the high profile neo-luddites like Hawkins or Musk. I wish I could have a megaphone and shout: AI that would be classified as having comparable human intelligence is way too far and there are a lot of pieces missing. Just because we can identify with 95.4% accuracy some MNIST dataset or 200 species of dogs, or some guys playing baseball, it's still a long way to getting to a working AGI. But instead on focusing on doing the actual work that would get us to these machine 'thugs' or at least promoting more research in that direction most prefer to sit in their armchair and argue to the death the hypothetical T-1000. Thankfully there are smart people out there doing real work and getting results so that is reassuring. My problem with these extremists is that they produce hype. Hype that got us the AI research winter last time.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- humanfromearth 12y ago
  And you think I don't want to live on my own platform in some giant habitat with drones that do everything for me. Where disease and famine is eradicated, where I can change my body however I want and I have no concept of money? Sure! Just as much as the other guy, but to get there we need some hard science, funding and steady progress. AI is one of the hardest problems facing us so doing things we so notoriously bad at like estimating the difficulty of a such problems will not get us any results. I encourage skepticism and careful research as opposed to ignorance and fear-mongering. On that note why was not Lecun's FAIR project not on front-page HN? Instead we have this shit... Is there any hope that we'll grow up?
deepsearch 12y ago
We are already gearing them toward good... "A Search Engine that Thinks, Almost" http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2005/03/31/a-search-engine-that-thinks-almost/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2005/03/31/a-search-engine-that-th...
Houshalter 12y ago
Musk, Hawking, et al. are not talking about deep neural nets that do well on MNIST, but what will be possible 20-50 years down the road. There are very real concerns about AI and it's annoying to see them just dismissed by calling people "neo-luddites". >But instead on focusing on doing the actual work that would get us to these machine 'thugs' or at least promoting more research in that direction most prefer to sit in their armchair and argue to the death the hypothetical T-1000 There has been more investment in AI in the last 5 years than in the 50 years before it. Even Musk invested millions to AI research.
- humanfromearth 12y ago
  I retract my previous statement. Musk is not a luddite. He's a clever businessman.
- mcguire 12y ago
  Spending time and effort on AI "20-50 years down the road" is a waste because: (a) statistically based, but obviously not (or not obviously) intelligent systems are going to change the legal and practical landscape well before Ultron gets up and starts walking around, and (b) the kinds of things they're worried about are almost certainly going to appear silly when the real thing does roll around. The moral responsibility for a bot that orders drugs certainly belongs to the person who set up the bot to order from the "black market"; for a drone that kills the wrong people, it belongs primarily to the officer that ordered the mission knowing that the statistical software wasn't perfect. In my opinion. The supreme court may differ. Also in my opinion, the dangers of "singularity" AI are overblown due to a soft, fuzzy, but very real upper limit on "intelligence".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

humanfromearth 12y ago
And you think I don't want to live on my own platform in some giant habitat with drones that do everything for me. Where disease and famine is eradicated, where I can change my body however I want and I have no concept of money? Sure! Just as much as the other guy, but to get there we need some hard science, funding and steady progress. AI is one of the hardest problems facing us so doing things we so notoriously bad at like estimating the difficulty of a such problems will not get us any results. I encourage skepticism and careful research as opposed to ignorance and fear-mongering. On that note why was not Lecun's FAIR project not on front-page HN? Instead we have this shit... Is there any hope that we'll grow up?

deepsearch 12y ago

We are already gearing them toward good... "A Search Engine that Thinks, Almost" http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2005/03/31/a-search-engine-that-thinks-almost/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2005/03/31/a-search-engine-that-th...

Houshalter 12y ago

Musk, Hawking, et al. are not talking about deep neural nets that do well on MNIST, but what will be possible 20-50 years down the road. There are very real concerns about AI and it's annoying to see them just dismissed by calling people "neo-luddites". >But instead on focusing on doing the actual work that would get us to these machine 'thugs' or at least promoting more research in that direction most prefer to sit in their armchair and argue to the death the hypothetical T-1000 There has been more investment in AI in the last 5 years than in the 50 years before it. Even Musk invested millions to AI research.

humanfromearth 12y ago
I retract my previous statement. Musk is not a luddite. He's a clever businessman.
mcguire 12y ago
Spending time and effort on AI "20-50 years down the road" is a waste because: (a) statistically based, but obviously not (or not obviously) intelligent systems are going to change the legal and practical landscape well before Ultron gets up and starts walking around, and (b) the kinds of things they're worried about are almost certainly going to appear silly when the real thing does roll around. The moral responsibility for a bot that orders drugs certainly belongs to the person who set up the bot to order from the "black market"; for a drone that kills the wrong people, it belongs primarily to the officer that ordered the mission knowing that the statistical software wasn't perfect. In my opinion. The supreme court may differ. Also in my opinion, the dangers of "singularity" AI are overblown due to a soft, fuzzy, but very real upper limit on "intelligence".