On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Telmo, >>> >>> I think if it were as simple as you make it seem, relative to what we >>> have today, we'd have engineered systems like that already. >>> >> >> It wasn't my intention to make it look simple. What I claim is that we >> already have a treasure trove of very interesting algorithms. None of them >> is AGI, but what they can do becomes more impressive with more computing >> power and access to data. >> > > I agree that can be made to do impressive things. Watson definitely > impressed me. > > Take google translator. It's far from perfect, but way ahead anything we >> had a decade ago. As far as I can tell, this was achieved with algorithms >> that had been known for a long time, but that now can operate on the >> gigantic dataset and computer farm available to google. >> >> Imagine what a simple minimax search tree could do with immense computing >> power and data access. >> > > The space of possibilities quickly scales beyond the wildest imaginings of > computing power. Chess AIs are already better than humans, because they > more or less implement this approach, and it turns out you "only" need to > computer a few hundred million positions per second to do that. Obviously > that's a toy environment... the possibilities inherent in the real world > are even be enumerable according to some predefined ontology (i.e. that > would be required to specify in a minimax type AI). > Ok, but of course minimax was also a toy example. Several algorithms that already exist could be combined: deep learning, bayesian belief networks, genetic programming and so on. A clever combination of algorithms plus the still ongoing exponential growth in available computational power could soon unleash something impressive. Of course I am just challenging your intuition, mostly because it's a fun topic :) Who knows who's right... Another interesting/scary scenario to think about is the possibility of a self-mutating computer program proliferating under our noses until it's too late (and exploiting the Internet to create a very powerful meta-computer by stealing a few cpu cycles from everyone). > > >> >> >>> You're talking about an AI that arrives at novel solutions, which >>> requires the ability to invent/simulate/act on new models in new domains >>> (AGI). >>> >> >> Evolutionary computation already achieves novelty and invention, to a >> degree. I concur that it is still not AGI. But it could already be a >> threat, given enough computational resources. >> > > AGI is a threat because it's utility function would necessarily be > sufficiently "meta" that it could create novel sub-goals. We would not > necessarily be able to control whether it chose a goal that was compatible > with ours. > > It comes down to how the utility function is defined. For Google Car, the > utility function probably tests actions along the lines of "get from A to B > safely, as quickly as possible". If a Google Car is engineered with > evolutionary methods to generate novel solutions (would be overkill but > bear with me), the novelty generated is contained within the utility > function. It might generate a novel route that conventional map algorithms > wouldn't find, but it would be impossible for it to find a solution like > "helicopter the car past this traffic jam". > What prevents the car from transforming into an helicopter and flying is not the utility function but the set of available actions. I have been playing with evolutionary computation for some time now, and one thing I learned is to not trust my intuition on the real constraints implied by such set of actions. > > >> >> >>> I'm not saying this is impossible, in fact I see this as inevitable on a >>> longer timescale. I'm saying that I doubt that the military is committing >>> any significant resources into that kind of research when easier approaches >>> are much more likely to bear fruit... but I really have no idea what the >>> military is researching, so it's just a hunch. >>> >> >> Why does it matter if it's the military that does this? To a sufficiently >> advanced AI, we are just monkeys throwing rocks at each other. It will >> surely figure out a way to take control of our resources, including >> weaponry. >> >> > > I think the thread started with a focus on killing machines. But your > point is taken. > > >> >>> What I would wager on is that the military is developing drones along >>> the same lines as what Google has achieved with its self-driving cars. >>> Highly competent, autonomous drones that excel in very specific >>> environments. The utility functions involved would be specified explicitly >>> in terms of "hard-coded" representations of stimuli. For AGI they would >>> need to be equipped to invent new models of the world, articulate those >>> models with respect to self and with respect to existing goal structures, >>> simulate them, and act on them. I think we are a long way from those kinds >>> of AIs. The only researcher I see making inroads towards that kind of AI is >>> Steve Grand. >>> >> >> But again, a reasonable fear is that a sufficiently powerful conventional >> AI is already a threat (due to increasing autonomy and data access + our >> possible inability to cover all the loopholes in utility functions). >> >> > The threats involved with AIs are contained within the scope of their > utility functions. As it turns out, the moment you widen the utility > function beyond a very narrow (and specifiable) domain, AI gets much, much > harder. > As above... Telmo. > > Terren > > >> Cheers >> Telmo. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
