So I am wary of the means justification that AI projects entail.
YMMV.
What is this? https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-ai-is-an-ideology-not-a-...
That's a fantastic observation. I'd even hazard to say that for some Artificial Intelligence is closer to a religion, not just an ideology.
- AI as understandable tool that power concrete products. There's already tons of this on the market - autocorrect, car crash detection, heart arrythmia identification, driving a car, searching inside photos, etc. This crowd tends to be much quieter and occupy little of the public imagination.
- AI as religion. These are the Singularity folks, the Roko's Basilisk folks. This camp regards the current/imminent practical applications of AI as almost a distraction from the true goal: the birth of a Machine-God. Opinions are mixed about whether or not the Machine-God is Good or Bad, but they share the belief that the birth of Machine-God is imminent.
I'm being a bit uncharitable here since as someone who firmly belongs in the first camp I have so little patience for people in the second camp. Especially because half of the second camp was hawking monkey JPEGs 18 months ago.
People think creating super-human intelligence is a technological challenge, but given that we aren't able to consistently rank human-level intelligence, the *recognition* that some AI has attained "super-human" levels is going to be a religious undertaking rather than a technological one.
And we're kind of close to the edges of that already. That's why discussions feel a bit more religious-y than in the past.
tl;dr: until there's a religion that worships some AI as a "god", there won't be any "AGI".
I fear you may be correct. Though now I'm thinking of how AI have been gods in fiction, and hoping that this will be more of a Culture (or Bob) scenario than a I Have No Mouth scenario.
(And if the AI learns what humans are like and how to behave around them from reading All The Fiction, which may well be the case… hmm. Depends what role the AI chooses for itself: I hear romance is the biggest genre, so we may well be fine…)
There's a good breakdown and cliche-by-cliche comparison in there, but I find the penultimate paragraph both memorable and quotable:
> It’s also interesting to think about what would happen if we applied “Rapture of the Nerds” reasoning more widely. Can we ignore nuclear warfare because it’s the Armageddon of the Nerds? Can we ignore climate change because it’s the Tribulation of the Nerds? Can we ignore modern medicine because it’s the Jesus healing miracle of the Nerds? It’s been very common throughout history for technology to give us capabilities that were once dreamt of only in wishful religious ideologies: consider flight or artificial limbs. Why couldn’t it happen for increased intelligence and all the many things that would flow from it?
AGI is not, and there is no evidence that it is even possible. So it, we can safely ignore for now. Once some evidence exists that it may actually be achievable, we'll need to pay attention.
People in 1000 CE could (and did) safely ignore all those things, for this exact reason.
We ourselves are an existence proof that minds like ours can be made, that these minds can be made from matter, and that the design for the organisation of that matter can come from a simple process of repeatedly making imprecise copies and then picking the best at surviving long enough to make more imprecise copies.
> People in 1000 CE could (and did) safely ignore all those things
Whereas the people, and specifically leadership, of Japan unsafely ignored one of them on the 5th August 1945. Some of the leadership were still saying it couldn't possibly have been a real atomic bomb as late as the 7th, which is ultimately why the second bomb fell on the 9th.
> We ourselves are an existence proof that minds like ours can be made, that these minds can be made from matter, and that the design for the organisation of that matter can come from a simple process of repeatedly making imprecise copies and then picking the best at surviving long enough to make more imprecise copies.
I think that "proof" rests on an as-yet circular assumption. Even if that assumption is accepted, there no evidence that humans are capable of designing a new mind or that it's possible to make a mind that greatly exceeds ours in capability.
> there no evidence that humans are capable of designing a new mind or that it's possible to make a mind that greatly exceeds ours in capability
There's plenty of good reasons to assume it's possible, all while there's no evidence suggesting it's not.
Apart from the most famous AI developer group since near the beginning of this year, on the back of releasing an AI that's upset a lot of teachers and interview-question writers because it can pass so many of their existing quizzes without the student/candidate needing to understand anything.
I suppose you could argue that they are only saying "AGI could happen soon or far in the future" rather than "it will definitely be soon"…
"But a company said the tech in their space might be ground-breaking earth-shattering life-changing stuff any minute now! What, you think people would just go on the internet and lie!?"
"But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
"But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Show me one scientific paper on Machine Learning that suggests it's similar in mechanism to the human brain's method of learning.
It's not a lack of logical or rhetorical means to disprove that's stopping you (i.e. I'm not moving any goalposts), it's the lack of evidence existing, and that's not a No True Scotsman fallacy, it's just the thing legitimately not existing.
I don't know what you mean by "as-yet circular assumption". (Though in the philosophy of knowledge, the Münchhausen trilemma says that everything is ultimately either circular, infinite regression, or dogmatic).
> there no evidence that humans are capable of designing a new mind or that it's possible to make a mind that greatly exceeds ours in capability.
Sounds like you're arguing against ASI not AGI: G = General like us; S = Super-, exceeding us.
That said, there's evidence that ASI is also possible: All the different ways in which we've made new minds that do in fact greatly exceed ours in capability.
When I was a kid, "intelligent" was the way we described people who were good at maths, skilled chess players, good memories, having large vocabularies, knowing many languages, etc. Even ignoring the arithmetical component of maths (where a Pi Zero exceeds all of humanity combined even if each of us were operating at the standard of the current world record holder), we have had programs solving symbolic maths for a long time; Chess (and Go, Starcraft, Poker,…) have superhuman AI; even before GPT, Google Translate already knew (even if you filter the list to only those where it was of a higher standard than my second language) more languages than I can remember the names of (and a few of them even with augmented reality image-to-image translations).
And of course, for all the flaws the current LLMs have in peak skill, most absolutely have superhuman breadth of knowledge: I can beat GPT-3.5 as a software engineer, maths and logic puzzles, or when writing stories, but that's basically it.
What we have not made is anything that's both human (or superhuman) skill-level while also human-level generality — but saying the two parts separately isn't evidence that it can be done is analogous to looking at 1 gram of enriched uranium and a video of a 50 kg sphere of natural uranium being forced to implode spherically, and saying "there no evidence that humans are capable of designing an atom bomb or that it's possible to make an atom bomb that greatly exceeds chemical bombs in yield."
What caused Japan to surrender was not the a-bombs, it was the USSR declaring war on them.
That aside, that still supports my point, which is that they should not ignore things that exist, while they can ignore things that don't. Like AGI.
One single plane flies over Hiroshima, ignored because "that can't possibly be a threat". The air raid warning had been cleared at 07:31, and many people were outside, going about their activities.
> it had its own atomic bomb program
Two programs; it was because they were not good enough that they thought the US couldn't have had the weapons:
--
The Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs and therefore the Japanese understood enough to know how very difficult building it would be. Therefore, many Japanese and in particular the military members of the government refused to believe the United States had built an atomic bomb, and the Japanese military ordered their own independent tests to determine the cause of Hiroshima's destruction.[0] Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more.[86] American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.[1]
[0] Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-100146-3
[1] Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi (2005). Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01693-4
--
> AGI
You personally are a General Intelligence; we have Artificial Intelligence. Is GPT-4 a "general" "intelligence"? That depends on the standards for the words "general" and "intelligence". (Someone is probably arguing that anything trained by an evolutionary algorithm isn't necessarily "artificial", not that I know how it was trained, nor even care given I don't use that standard).
If I gave you $250,000,000 to grow a company, and then next year I saw you had $250,050,000 in the bank, then $250,102,000 next year, and so on, I'd be pretty annoyed that I backed you. You have so much money you could be spending on hiring, development, and marketing, and you're instead just slowly chugging along, padding the corporate bank account? What am I paying you for?! Give me my money back.
VC-backed companies that spend more than they earn aren't duds. It's the nature of VC-backed corporations.
This might matter to you, but it does not matter to me. In the meantime, my life will have been better and my time saved between now and death (certainly less than 100 years from now). That's what the money is for. Time is non renewable. If you have more time and ideology than money, I admit your solution is a better fit for your life and use case(s). Self host if you want, I have better things to do personally vs cobbling together technology that I can buy polished for the cost of two coffees a month. There's a product lesson in this subthread. No business lasts forever, the benefit is the value delivered during its lifecycle. Provide value, and I will happily let you ding my credit card monthly or annually (please support annual plans B2C!) forever. "Build something people want" or something like that [3].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 ("My YC app: Dropbox - Throw away your USB drive ")
[3] https://www.ycombinator.com/library/4D-yc-s-essential-startu...
And Apple later released the whole iCloud suite that made Dropbox a second class citizen in the OS, even as to this day Dropbox works better than iCloud in many ways. We more and more hear the "services revenue" drum at every Apple earning call, so Jobs was not wrong either.
Pretty much a guarantee that a lot of money will be wasted while panickly iterating through pointless approaches. I figure this happens every time a new fundamental technology comes out, the dot-com bubble has probably seen many such companies.
AI in the digital age is uniquely disruptive however, since it connects directly to the way we communicate.. so there is some reason to be wound-up by this, whatever role you are in
My consulting company works with folks to take ideas that are solvable or usable with an ML framework and map those to digital services or solutions.
Rarely is the end product called "<something> AI" -- but at the end, it's still using AI/ML.
We've been around a bit longer than the current AI hype, and our niche is engaging and fun.
It was coined by John McCarthy, one of the founders of the term AI.
No disrespect, but this is a pretty bad quote. Are we really at the point where a lazy tweet not-so-hot-take deserves to be stored in the annals of history?
My students were just given an assignment where they build AI to play Connect 4. Some will try to make a simple reflex solution because they want to avoid recursion, then come to office hours asking how to make it work better. It... can't. There really is an observable upper-bound on if-then performance.
Only on if-else chains you can code by hand.
There's a lot of machine learning methods that can be seen as using data to generate large networks of if-else decision points. There are methods that perform (a discrete simulation of) continuous generalization of if-else chains. And fundamentally, if-else chains with a loop thrown in the mix is a Turing-complete system, so it can do anything.
The problem here is that if-else chains are a really inefficient way for humans to model reality with. We can do much better with different approaches and abstractions, but since they all are equivalent to a finite sequence of if-else branches, it's not the if-else where the problem is - it's our own cognitive capacity.
I love this because when a company tells me they do AI (as a software engineer) they tacitly say that they have little to no knowledge of where they want to go or what services they will be offering with that AI.