SilasBarta comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Ask Your Questions - Less Wrong

16 Post author: MichaelGR 11 November 2009 03:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (682)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: SilasBarta 11 November 2009 03:26:35PM 11 points [-]

Previously, you said that a lot of work in Artificial Intelligence is "5% intelligence and 95% rigged demo". What would you consider an example of something that has a higher "intelligence ratio", if there is one, and what efforts do you consider most likely to increase this ratio?

Comment author: CannibalSmith 12 November 2009 12:23:52PM 2 points [-]

DARPA's Grand Challenge produced several intelligent cars and was definitely not a rigged demo.

Comment author: SilasBarta 12 November 2009 07:07:24PM 0 points [-]

Good point. I remember that in that context, Eliezer Yudkowsky had spoken highly of Sebastian Thrun's CES (C++ for embedded systems). I started reading Thrun's exposition of CES but never finished it.

Still, I'd like to hear Eliezer's answer to my question, in case there's more he can say.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 15 November 2009 05:02:20PM 0 points [-]

Juergen had some things to say about that actually.

Comment author: anonym 15 November 2009 06:42:23PM 0 points [-]

Something to say about "intelligent cars" or "not a rigged demo"?

Comment author: alyssavance 13 November 2009 12:22:09AM 0 points [-]

Chess-playing AI has had a lot of decent-quality work done on it, and Deep Blue beating Kasparov was definitely not a rigged demo.

Comment author: SilasBarta 13 November 2009 03:26:16AM 1 point [-]

Eliezer called the example in the link 95% rigged by virtue of how much the problem was constrained before a program attacked it. Chess is likewise the very definition of a constrained problem.

Certainly, the Kasparov match wasn't "rigged" (other than being able to review Kasparov's previous games while Kasparov couldn't do the same for Deep Blue), but when the search space is so constrained, and tree pruning methods and computer speed only get faster, it's bound to surpass humans eventually. There was no crucial AI insight that had to be overcome to beat Kasparov; if they had failed to notice some good tree-pruning heuristics, it would have just delayed the victory by a few years as computers got faster.