Oh fun, we're talking about my advisers' favorite topic! Yeah, strong natural language is a huge pain and if we had devices that understood human speech well, tech companies would jump on that ASAP.
But here's the thing. If you want natural language processing, why build a Human 2.0? Why not just build the speech recognition system? It's making AGI for something like that the equivalent of building a 747 to fly one person across a state? I can see various expert systems coming together as an AGI, but not starting out as such.
Sounds like a logical conclusion to me...
I still have a lot of questions about detail but I'm starting to see what I was after: consistent, objective definitions I can work with and relate to my experience with computers and AI.
... if we're talking about code that is capable of itself generating executable code as output in response to situations that arise
Again, it really shouldn't be doing that. It should have the capacity to learn new skills and build new neural networks to do so. That doesn't require new code, it just requires a routine to initialize a new set of ANN objects at runtime.
Just as my desktop computer no longer functions by the rules of a dRAM.
It never really did. DRAM is just a way to keep bits in memory for processing. What's going on under the hood of any computer hasn't changed at all. It's just grown vastly more complex and allowed us to do much more intricate and impressive things with the same basic ideas. The first computer ever built and today's machines function by the same rules, it's just that the latter is given the tools to do so much more with them.
...And as JoshuaZ explains, it is something that does everyth
Um... we already do all that to a pretty high extent and we don't need general intelligence in every single facet of human ability to do that. Just make it an expert in its task and that's all you need.
the relevant dimension of intelligence is something like "ability to design and examine itself similarly to it's human designers".
Ok, I'll buy that. I would agree that any system that could be its own architect and hold meaningful design and code review meetings with its builders would qualify as human-level intelligent.
You keep suggesting that there's no reason to worry about how to constrain the behavior of computer programs, because computer programs can only do what they are told to do.
No, I just keep saying that we don't need to program them to "like rewards and fear punishments" and train them like we'd train dogs.
...I agree completely that, in doing so, it is merely doing what I told it to do: I'm the one who wrote that stupid bug, it didn't magically come out of nowhere, the program doesn't have any mysterious kind of free will or anything. It's just a
Hmm, so would a grad student who is thinking about a thesis problem because their advisor said to think about it be showing initiative?
Dis he/she volunteer to work on a problem and come to the advisor saying that this is the thesis subject? Doesn't sound like it, so I'd say it's not. Initiative is doing something that's not required, but something you feel needs to be done or something you want to do.
Is "incorrectly" a normative or descriptive term?
Yes. When you need it to return "A" and it retuns "Finland," it made a m...
Thank you for the unnecessary tutorial. But actually, what I said is that a super-human AI might be something like a very large neural net.
No, actually I think the tutorial was necessary, especially since what you're basically saying is that something like a large enough neural net will no longer function by the rules of an ANN. If it doesn't, how does it learn? It would simply spit out random outputs without having some sort of direct guidance.
More will go on in a future superhuman AI than goes on in any present-day toy AI.
And again I'm trying to f...
... the words intelligent and intelligence in this context and simply refer to a computer capable of doing at least everything a regular person can do.
But we already have things capable of doing everything a regular person can do. We call them regular people. Are we trying to build another person in digital format here, and if so, why? Just because we want to see if can? Or because we have some big plans for it?
Hey, if people choose to downvote my replies, either because they disagree or just plain don't like me, that's their thing. I'm not all that easy to scare with a few downvotes... =)
I don't think this is a good argument. Just because you cannot define something doesn't mean it's not a real phenomena or that you cannot reason about it at all.
If you have no working definition for what you're trying to discuss, you're more than likely to be barking up the wrong tree about it. We didn't understand fire completely, but we knew that it was hot, you couldn't touch it, and you made it by rubbing dry sticks together really, really fast, or by making a spark with rocks and have it land on dry straw.
Also, where did I say that until I get a de...
Can you clarify how it's helpful to know that my machine only does what it's been told to do, if I can't know what I'm telling it to do or be certain what I have told it to do?
If you have no idea what you want your AI to do, why are you building it in the first place? I have never built an app that does, you know, anything and whatever. It'll just be muddled mess that probably won't even compile.
we have programs embedded in DNA that manifest themselves in brains...
No we do not. This is not how biology works. Brains are self-organizing structures bui...
Would the ability to come up with new definitions and conjectures in math be an example of thinking and initiative?
Yes, but with a caveat. I could teach an ANN how to solve a problem but it would be more or less by random trial and error with a squashing function until each "neuron" has the right weight and activation function. So it will learn how to solve this generic problem, but it won't be because it traced its way along all the steps.
(Actually I made in mistake in my previous reply, ANNs have no fitness function, that's a genetic algorit...
Other people imagine something like a neural net containing more 'neurons' than the human brain - a device which is born with little more hardwired programming than the general guidance...
That's not what an artificial neural net actually is. When training your ANN, you give it an input and tell it what the output should be. Then, using a method called backpropagation, you tell it to adjust the weights and activation thresholds of each neuron object until it can match the output. So you're not just telling it to learn, you're telling it what the problem ...
So in other words, you're more of a hit-and-run-out-of-context kind of guy than someone who prefers to actually go further than a derisive little put down and show that he actually understands the topic in enought depth to argue it?
... but the overarching premise that machines can only do what they are programmed to seems to show up in both pieces, and is simply wrong.
Only if you choose to discard any thought to how machines are actually built. There's no magic going on in that blinking box, just ciruits performing the functions they were designed to do in the order they're told.
Neural nets and genetic algorithms often don't do what they are told.
Actually, they do precisely what they're told because without a fitness function which determines what problem they are to solve in ...
It centers around what happens once machines have human level intelligence.
As defined by... what exactly? We have problems measuring our own intelligence or even defining it so we're giving computers a very wide sliding scale of intelligence based on personal opinions and ideas morethan a rigirous examination. A computer today could ace just about any general knowledge test we give it if we tell it how to search for an answer or compute a problem. Does that make it as intelligent as a really academically adept human? Oh and it can do it in a tiny fraction of the time it would take us. Does that make it superhuman?
Fish seemed to be implying that it wasn't.
Absolutely not. If you take another look, I argue that it's uncessary. You don't want the machine to do something? Put in a boundry. You don't have the option to just turn off a lab rat's desire to search a particular corner of its cage with a press of a button, so all you can do is put in some deterrent. But with a machine, you can just tell it not to do that. For example, this code in Java would mean not to add two even numbers if the method recieves them:
public int add(int a, int b) { if ((a % 2) != 0 &am...
Part of the disagreement here seems to arise from disjoint models of what a powerful AI would consist of.
You seem to imagine something like an ordinary computer, which receives its instructions in some high-level imperative language, and then carries them out, making use of a huge library of provably correct algorithms.
Other people imagine something like a neural net containing more 'neurons' than the human brain - a device which is born with little more hardwired programming than the general guidance that 'learning is good' and 'hurting people is bad' tog...
My intention for linking to it was not that I thought it featured good arguments...
Gee, thanks. So you basically linked and replied as a form of damage control? And by the way, the "outsiders' perception" isn't helped when the "insiders'" arguments seem to be based not on what computers actually do, but what they're made to do in comic books.
Well, argue the points then. Anyone can make a pithy "oh, he doesn't know what he's talking about" and leave it at that. Go ahead, show your expertise on the subject. Of course you'd be showing it on a single out-of-context quote here...
I think the author is asserting that it seems to them that some of the stuff put out by the website shows the general trends one expect if someone has learned about some idea from popularizations rather than the technical literature.
Yes that is exactly what I meant. That might sound a little harsh, but that was my impression.
Wow, if that's all you got from a post trying to explain the very real difference between acing an intelligence test by figuring things out on your own and having a machine do the same after you give it all the answers and how the suggested equations only measure how many answers were right, not how that feat was accomplished, I don't even know how to properly respond...
Oh and by the way, in the comments I suggest how to keep track of the machine doing some learning and figuring out to Dr. Legg so there's another thing to consider. And yes, I've had the formal instruction in discrete math to do so.
Not sure. You could argue both points in this situation.
Any AI can get out of control. I never denied that. My issue is with how that should be managed, not whether it can happen.
I suppose it would.