Welcome to the Lounge

Nelek6-Jul-20 10:55

6-Jul-20 10:55

raddevus wrote:
If you're interested in these types of thought experiments about where the future might lead,

I would be interested... if that future were not that fvcked up.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

raddevus7-Jul-20 2:19

7-Jul-20 2:19

Yeah, we all want it to be done right. The book does a great job of pointing out the problems that have to be solved.

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter6-Jul-20 19:29

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter

6-Jul-20 19:29

At this point all we have to fear is one using this so-called AI (nothing super-intelligent about it), and after brain-washing the common people, exploit it...

"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012

Mycroft Holmes6-Jul-20 21:30

Mycroft Holmes

6-Jul-20 21:30

As the current AI iterations are just very good statistical machines I can't see us getting to superAI any time soon.

Having said that if they ever get AI to be creative then Ghu knows what will be the next step. I doubt I will be around to see it happen.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP

raddevus7-Jul-20 2:28

7-Jul-20 2:28

Interestingly, the algorithm that beat the world champion at Go, actually did commit an act of "creativity". I didn't know about this either, until I read about it in the book, The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI[^] by Marcus du Sautoy who is a professor of math.

What happened was that during a particular match the Go AI committed a move that everyone said was childish and wrong but then ended up causing the AI to beat the champion. The really interesting thing was that even though there is like 3000 years of Go to study no Master Go player would ever say to use that move. However, now, all Go players know this strategy now and use it. But it was created by the Go AI.

There are some other things you'll learn in this book to and that is that Math proofs are so complex (some are 10,000 pages long - seriously) now that only AI can determine if they are correct or not. But how do we know the AI is correct? It's really interesting.

modified 7-Jul-20 9:14am.

Sander Rossel6-Jul-20 22:02

Sander Rossel

6-Jul-20 22:02

There are a few problems with AI, the first being that we don't even know what intelligence is.
I like to point at The Big Bang Theory where main character Sheldon is supposed to be super smart, yet he can't function in society.
In a way, Penny is much smarter than Sheldon despite having about a third of his IQ.
I know it's just a show meant for laughs, but that part isn't far-fetched.
You've probably heard the tribes-in-the-jungle argument before, they can't do basic math, but they're able to survive out in the jungle, something most of us couldn't.
An IQ test tests that which we, in the modern west, think a reasonably intelligent person should know, but it's shaped around our current time and place.
A tribe member wouldn't score a 1 on an IQ test, but they're still intelligent by their own standards.

So what is intelligence and how do we test it?
The dictionary says "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
That's a very broad definition and I'd like to argue it's not very accurate either.
Any "AI" that's around today is nothing more than a machine learning algorithm that just finds patterns.
Not to downplay the technology, but it's hardly "intelligent".
Take that computer that "learned" how to play Super Mario simply by failing thousands of times and then doing something else.
By the dictionary definition it "acquired" a skill (playing Super Mario) and then "applied" it (by finishing the level/game).
Yet, I don't think trial and error would generally be considered as intelligent.
So at what point do we consider it intelligent?
So then comes the next question, if we don't know what intelligence is then how are we going to recreate it?

I find it funny that people are worrying about artificial super intelligence while we don't even have artificial regular intelligence yet.
That's not to say computers can't completely elephant us over right now.
There's a few super computers out there that run very complex computations and simulations and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them concludes it'd be best if the entire world got nuked and reset Laugh | :laugh:

Still, that will be a completely logical decision, not intelligence Smile | :)

Best,
Sander

sanderrossel.com
Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure
arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly

ZurdoDev7-Jul-20 1:18

ZurdoDev

7-Jul-20 1:18

Precisely. Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.

Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.

raddevus7-Jul-20 2:36

7-Jul-20 2:36

Very good post and interesting points.
I thought that AI was just a bunch of math toppled upon math until I read the book, The
Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI[^] by math professor Marcus du Sautoy.

In it he explains the AI that defeated the world champion of Go.
The interesting thing is that it committed a move that no human Go player would ever commit.
That move led the AI to win a particular match. But as the world watched the commentors said it was a childish and faulty move. They said the algo had obviously failed.
Then because of that move the algo went on to win.
There is like 3000 years of Go and people began to study that move and wonder why the AI chose it. They cannot explain why, but now every Go player uses that move at a particular point in matches. It actually did something that others had not done before.
Somewhat of a point of creativity. Very interesting.

modified 7-Jul-20 9:13am.

Nelek7-Jul-20 8:26

7-Jul-20 8:26

raddevus wrote:
The interesting thing is that it committed a move that no human Go player would ever commit.
That move led the AI to win a particular match. But as the world watched the commentors said it was a childish and faulty move. They said the algo had obviously failed.
Then because of that move the algo went on to win.

Statistics, probability, many other things... but creativity?

M.D.V.

raddevus7-Jul-20 9:12

7-Jul-20 9:12

Nelek wrote:
Statistics, probability, many other things... but creativity?

I know. I agree with you. But there is a lot more to the story than it would seem. And this is the part that is so interesting and confusing.
Algorithms are "learning" making changes based upon choices they made and then making changes again, in a huge loop.
But, already, the people who've developed these AIs do not know why the AI made a particular decision.

In the past, you could say, "well, look here in the source code there is an if statement and this flag variable. However, the way things are done now, the algorithm tries things and the humans are not even sure why.

You'd have to read that entire book to really see how complex it is becoming but it isn't just pure stats now, it is something a level beyond that. That's why when the AI that beat the Go world champion made this choice it was as if it exercised some form of random creativity. It's quite interesting. Read that book and it'll really make you think.

Nelek7-Jul-20 21:12

7-Jul-20 21:12

raddevus wrote:
You'd have to read that entire book to really see how complex it is becoming but it isn't just pure stats now,

I know I should read it to be able to speak with based arguments, but this is not going to happen. I am just saying my opinion on the topic, with a "general user" knowledge about the topic.

raddevus wrote:
Algorithms are "learning" making changes based upon choices they made and then making changes again, in a huge loop.

Humans do it too, specially babies learn a lot using the "trial and error" method. Nothing against it.

raddevus wrote:
But, already, the people who've developed these AIs do not know why the AI made a particular decision.

People can be unforeseeable too, so it is something one could "live with"

raddevus wrote:
In the past, you could say, "well, look here in the source code there is an if statement and this flag variable. However, the way things are done now, the algorithm tries things and the humans are not even sure why.

And that's exactly the dangerous part of it. We are trying things were you can't know "a priori" what's going to happen. And not only with AI or in the IT branches.

I am not against the advances, I would only wish a bit more of caution doing things. As someone already said:

Quote:
Humanity wins knowledge way, way faster than wins wisdom.

Kids usually learn the hard way that to start running without having learned to walk properly can be painful.
The biggest difference is... in these kind of topics the running without walking properly of few can bring us ALL to a very unpleasant situation.

M.D.V.

raddevus8-Jul-20 3:36

8-Jul-20 3:36

Fantastic points. I agree. Great post. Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Nelek8-Jul-20 8:28

8-Jul-20 8:28

Thanks

M.D.V.

Nelek7-Jul-20 8:24

7-Jul-20 8:24

Sander Rossel wrote:
I find it funny that people are worrying about artificial super intelligence while we don't even have artificial regular intelligence yet.

I am not worry about super AI, because I agree with you.

I am worried about idiots in charge (and in the society itself) giving the falible and not so intelligent systems so much power.

Sander Rossel wrote:
There's a few super computers out there that run very complex computations and simulations and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them concludes it'd be best if the entire world got nuked and reset

Exactly...
Hello David, do you want to play a game...?

M.D.V.

englebart8-Jul-20 4:57

englebart

8-Jul-20 4:57

You forgot to credit the WHOPPER with the quote. I remember it as "Would you like to play a game?"
Modems and phone phreaking are lost arts.
Movie: War Games

Nelek8-Jul-20 8:25

8-Jul-20 8:25

englebart wrote:
You forgot to credit the WHOPPER with the quote.

englebart wrote:
I remember it as "Would you like to play a game?"

And might be like that. I saw it 20 years ago in spanish...

englebart wrote:
Movie: War Games

Exactly.

M.D.V.

englebart8-Jul-20 9:10

englebart

8-Jul-20 9:10

My faulty Spanish:
¿Te gustaría jugar un juego?

I just found the original English:
"Shall we play a game?"

My brain stored it closer to your translation than the original. I think I saw the original version in the theater as a teenager. Soy viejo.

Nelek8-Jul-20 11:49

8-Jul-20 11:49

I saw it on TV as kid, I am not that old, but neither a youngster Wink | ;)

M.D.V.

Dave DD8-Jul-20 4:01

Dave DD

8-Jul-20 4:01

As someone who has taken an IQ test administered by doctors of psychology I can assure you that jungle dwelling indigenous peoples would score much higher than 1. An proper IQ test covers much more than book learning.

megaadam6-Jul-20 23:27

megaadam

6-Jul-20 23:27

Two other excellent books are:
Life 3.0 - Wikipedia[^]
Which starts with an entertaining story of how a [benign] AI might take over. It then is slow but halfway through the book it becomes super-interesting again

And the other one is pretty advanced, I can recommend it warmly:
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies - Wikipedia[^]

BTW, who noticed the absence of marketing the market leaders?

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"

raddevus7-Jul-20 2:37

7-Jul-20 2:37

Thanks for the additional resources. I've seen that Max Tegmark book before. Will take a closer look.

Vikram A Punathambekar6-Jul-20 23:31

Vikram A Punathambekar

6-Jul-20 23:31

Predicting the future is incredibly hard.

A conclave of the smartest apes in the world 2 million years ago wouldn't have been able to predict today's world.

Hell, the smartest humans 1000 years ago wouldn't have been able to predict, say, the moon landings or mass communication.

Cheers,
विक्रम

"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread D'Oh! | :doh:

JohaViss618-Jul-20 0:44

JohaViss61

8-Jul-20 0:44

What people call AI is not more than some (clever) algorithms.

Even so-called human intelligence, are basically learned algorithms.
The only thing that humans have, is a form of creativity.

If we would compare the 'intelligence' of the people that build Stonehenge to our own, they would be considered rather unintelligent. But we couldn't survive in their time for more than a few days(at most)

basically AI is the next version of what was called CA*. (CAD, CAM, etc)
We should call it what it really is: Computer-Aided Decision Making (CADM) Cool | :cool:

Let's face it: humans are not 'intelligent' enough to fix the current problems in the world, so don't expect them to create 'Artificial Intelligence' WTF | :WTF:

CCostaT8-Jul-20 2:30

CCostaT

8-Jul-20 2:30

Actually that is the same argument for why, possibly, aliens would destroy humanity if they ever came here. We are nothing compared to advanced civilizations so they wouldn't care about us. No malicious intent necessary.

Lex Fridman had an awesome interview with Michio Kaku where they discuss this. It's super interesting.
Here's the link if you want to take a look (starts at 15 minutes): Michio Kaku: Future of Humans, Aliens, Space Travel & Physics | Artificial Intelligence (AI) Podcast[^]

raddevus8-Jul-20 3:40