The only thing I hope AI will achieve is to be less condescending... if it achieves true understanding, I hope it will be humble... and as far as John Clark dislikes religions and God, the singularity will be God...
Quentin Le sam. 5 févr. 2022, 20:51, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:34 PM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Look at this code for a subprogram and make something that does the >>>> same thing but is smaller or runs faster or both. And that's not a toy >>>> problem, that's a real problem. >>>> >>> >>> > "does the same thing" is problematic for a couple reasons. The first >>> is that AlphaCode doesn't know how to read code, >>> >> >> Huh? We already know AlphaCode can write code, how can something know >> how to write but not read? It's easier to read a novel than write a novel. >> > > This is one case where your intuitions fail. I dug a little deeper into > how AlphaCode works. It generates millions of candidate solutions using a > model trained on github code. It then filters out 99% of those candidate > solutions by running them against test cases provided in the problem > description and removing the ones that fail. It then uses a different > technique to whittle down the candidate solutions from several thousand to > just ten. Nobody, neither the AI nor the humans running AlphaCode, know if > the 10 solutions picked are correct. > > AlphaCode is not capable of reading code. It's a clever version of monkeys > typing on typewriters until they bang out a Shakespeare play. Still counts > as AI, but cannot be said to understand code. > > >> >>> *> The other problem is that with that problem description, it won't >>> evolve except in the very narrow sense of improving its efficiency.* >>> >> >> It seems to me the ability to write code that was smaller and faster than >> anybody else is not "very narrow", a human could make a very good living >> indeed from that talent. And if I was the guy that signed his enormous >> paycheck and somebody offered me a program that would do the same thing he >> did I'd jump at it. >> > > This actually already exists in the form of optimizing compilers - which > are the programs that translate human-readable code like Java into assembly > language that microprocessors use to manipulate data. Optimizing compilers > can make human code more efficient. But these gains are only available in > very well-understood and limited ways. To do what you're suggesting > requires machine intelligence capable of understanding things in a much > broader context. > > >> >> >>> *> The kind of problem description that might actually lead to a >>> singularity is something like "Look at this code and make something that >>> can solve ever more complex problem descriptions". But my hunch there is >>> that that problem description is too complex for it to recursively >>> self-improve towards.* >>> >> >> Just adding more input variables would be less complex than figuring out >> how to make a program smaller and faster. >> > > Think about it this way. There's diminishing returns on the strategy to > make the program smaller and faster, but potentially unlimited returns on > being able to respond to ever greater complexity in the problem > description. > > >> >> >> I think if Steven Spielberg's movie had been called AGI instead of AI >>>> some people today would no longer like the acronym AGI because too many >>>> people would know exactly what it means and thus would lack that certain >>>> aura of erudition and mystery that they crave . Everybody knows what AI >>>> means, but only a small select cognoscenti know the meaning of AGI. A >>>> Classic case of jargon creep. >>>> >>> >>> >Do you really expect a discipline as technical as AI to not use >>> jargon? >>> >> >> When totally new concepts come up, as they do occasionally in science, >> jargon is necessary because there is no previously existing word or short >> phrase that describes it, but that is not the primary generator of >> jargon and is not in this case because a very short word that describes >> the idea already exists and everybody already knows what AI means, but >> very few know that AGI means the same thing. And some see that as AGI's >> great virtue, it's mysterious and sounds brainy. >> >> >>> *> You use physics jargon all the time.* >>> >> >> I do try to keep that to a minimum, perhaps I should try harder. >> > > I don't hold it against you, and I certainly don't think you're trying to > cultivate an aura of erudition and mystery when you do. I'm not sure why > you seem to have an axe to grind about the use of AGI, but it is a useful > distinction to make. It's clear we have AI today. And it's equally clear we > do not have AGI. > > Terren > > >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> pjx >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/CAJPayv0344k0h7t3EjYtgsW5-652P_qieSqyXCtOiAr9zAnmOQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0344k0h7t3EjYtgsW5-652P_qieSqyXCtOiAr9zAnmOQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > 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/CAMy3ZA9AUnjQCeOSP1NVN6djp57oOJLQi6_Se03wuR3yjfEW9A%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9AUnjQCeOSP1NVN6djp57oOJLQi6_Se03wuR3yjfEW9A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kAo9KTLj49i7UV-rr2U77T2y63H05SBXryoTa-YSZ0a7Sw%40mail.gmail.com.
