On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:06 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 7:20 PM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *>>> AlphaCode can potentially improve its code, but to what end? What >>>> problem is it trying to solve? How does it know?* >>>> >>> >>> >> I don't understand your questions >>> >> >> > *What part is confusing?* >> > > I'll make you a deal, I'll tell you "what problem it is trying to solve" > if you first tell me how long a piece of string is. And if you don't wanna > do that just rephrase the question more clearly. > > lol ok. The worry you're articulating is that AlphaCode will turn its coding abilities on itself and improve its own code, and that this could lead to the singularity. First, it must be said that AlphaCode is a tool with no agency of its own. Left to its own devices, it will do... nothing. But let's say the DeepMind team wanted to improve AlphaCode by applying AlphaCode to itself. My question to you is, what is the "toy problem" they would feed to AlphaCode? How do you define that problem? > > >> Yeah with a human that process takes many decades, but even today >>> computers can process many many times more information than a human can, >>> not surprising when you consider the fact that the signals inside a human >>> brain only travel about 100 miles an hour while the signals in a computer >>> travel close to the speed of light, 186,000 miles a second. >>> >> >> *> Much of our learning takes place via interactions with other humans, >> and those cannot be sped up.* >> > > Sure it can be, an AI could have a detailed intellectual conversation > with 1000 people at the same time, or a million, or a billion. > Sure, but those interactions still take time, perhaps days or even months. And you're assuming that many people will *want* to have conversations with an AI. Have you ever tried listening to a 6 year old try and tell a story? It's cute at first but the interest level quickly fades. Imagine an AI still learning the ropes of conversation, how little patience people would have for that. Kids at least have parents that are invested in listening and helping them learn. Your "speed of light" point only goes so far. > * > I'm not talking about facts and information,* >> > > You may not be talking about facts and information but I sure as hell I am > because information is as close as you can get to the traditional idea of > the soul without entering the realm of religion or some other form > of idiocy. > >> *> but about theories of mind, understanding human motivations, forming >> and testing hypotheses about how to get goals met by interacting with other >> humans, and other animals for that matter.* >> > > If humans can do it then an AI can do it too because knowledge is just > highly computed information, and wisdom is just highly computed knowledge. > Sure, I can hand-wave things away too. "Highly computed" means what exactly? I can reverse every word in this post. If I did that a million times in a row it would be "highly computed" but it wouldn't result in knowledge, much less wisdom. > *> And I'm not talking about mere information, * >> > > Mere information? Mere?! > As opposed to knowledge, wisdom, the ability to model aspects of the world and simulate them, the ability to explain things, etc. > > *> but models that can be simulated in what-if scenarios, true >> understanding. You need real AGI.* >> > > You need AI, AGI is just loquacious technobabble used to make things > sound more inscrutable. > Doesn't seem all that loquacious to me. AGI just adds the word "general", to highlight the fact that today's AI isn't able to apply its intelligence to anything but narrow domains. If that's inscrutable, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you. > > *> We probably need to define what understanding/comprehension actually >> means if we're going to take this much further.* >> > > I don't think that would help one bit because fundamentally definitions > are not important in language, examples are. After all, examples are where > lexicographers get the knowledge to write the definitions for their book. > So I'd say that "understanding" is the thing that Einstein had about > physics to a greater extent than anybody else of his generation. > Sure, that works for me. Einstein was able to predict and explain things that nobody before him was able to. Prediction and explanation are hallmarks of understanding. > > *> Regardless, to operate in the free-form world of humans, an AI needs to >> be able to understand and react to a problem space that is constantly >> changing. Changing rules (implicit and explicit), players, goals, dynamics, >> etc.* >> > > Well sure, but AIs have been able to do that for years, since the 1950's. > Care to give an example of AI in the 1950s that could do that? > > > *Is that possible to do without real understanding?* >> > > No. If I can answer some questions and perform some tasks in a certain > area then I could be confident in saying have some "real understanding" in > that area of knowledge, and if you can answer more questions and perform > more tasks in that area than I can then I would say you have an even > greater understanding than I do, and I don't care if your brain is wet and > squishy or dry and hard. > > OK. > >> As I've mentioned before, the entire human genome is only 750 >>> megabytes, the new Mac operating system is about 20 times that size, and >>> the genome contains instructions to build an entire human body not just a >>> brain, and the genome is loaded with massive redundancy; so whatever the >>> algorithm is that the brain uses to extract information from the >>> environment there is simply no way it can be all that complicated. >>> >> >> > >> *The thing that makes intelligence intelligence is not simply extracting >> information from the environment.* >> > > How do you figure that? If human intelligence doesn't come from the 750 > MB in our genome and it doesn't come from the environment then where does > this secret sauce come from? From an invisible man in the sky? If so then > why does He only give it to brains that are wet and squishy. > Not sure how you got that from what I said. The point I'm making is that intelligence, operationally speaking, is about far more than simply extracting information from the environment. It's about making models of the world that can be used for prediction, explanation, making plans, coordinating, etc. Information extraction is necessary but not sufficient for intelligence. > >> Machines move so fast that at breakfast the singularity could look to >>> a human like it's a very long way off, but by lunchtime the singularity >>> could be ancient history. >>> >> >> *> Do you think the singularity can occur with an AI that doesn't have >> real understanding?* >> > > Of course not! I have no objection to the term "real understanding", I > only object when the term is used in a silly way, such as when I accomplish > something in a certain field it demonstrates "real understanding" but even > though an AI can do things in that same field even better and faster than I > can it demonstrates nothing but a mindless reflex because its brain is dry > and hard and not wet and squishy. > I agree with that. Presumably we'd also agree that AlphaGo and AlphaZero have real understanding of go & chess, respectively. I'm not sure Stockfish does though, because a brute-force computational approach leveraging heuristics given to it by humans strikes me as devoid of understanding. Stockfish is closer to a computational prosthetic for human minds. To the larger point, where I think we disagree is how easy it is for an AI to achieve real understanding of the real world of human interaction. Terren > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA_KPQ8NLoazKZm6K%2BujKYG-hoYHUcn%3DnwtBRJa4Rx6yzg%40mail.gmail.com.
