[HN Gopher] DeepMind AI is as fast as humans at solving previous...
___________________________________________________________________
DeepMind AI is as fast as humans at solving previously unseen tasks
Author : antondd
Score : 145 points
Date : 2023-02-11 13:53 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newscientist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newscientist.com)
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I think DeepMind is really good at solving "spherical cow"
| problems. They can model a very simplified model of a small
| aspect of the real world and solve it brilliantly.
|
| However, there is a big question of how much the results are
| actually transferable to the real world.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Here's the original article that this is reporting on:
| https://sites.google.com/view/adaptive-agent/
| theknocker wrote:
| [dead]
| bigape911 wrote:
| Depending on the problem, I expect it to be much much faster
| especially foor physics and math problems.
| bigape911 wrote:
| It's sad to see the great minds at Google fail to capitalize on
| their tech
| greatpostman wrote:
| Google pumping out PR to get some damage control on chatgpt. No
| evidence in the public of any of these claims. Show us the models
| google
| nightski wrote:
| Lecun @ Meta has been doing the same thing on Twitter lol. Re-
| tweeting all these papers with no actual public information.
| waboremo wrote:
| Half of the reason I still have a twitter is for this very
| reason. Highly intelligent people exhibiting some of the most
| petty behavior. It's a great reminder, of many things,
| including how tribal we still are in the worst ways.
| we_never_see_it wrote:
| [dead]
| amf12 wrote:
| These are based on published research by Deepmind, which is an
| AI research lab. They don't build products to "demo" anything
| to the public. They research and publish peer-reviewed papers.
|
| The only thing they can "demo" is the simulation of the model,
| which they have published as videos on YouTube. Here's the
| paper if you're curious btw:
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.07608.pdf
| greatpostman wrote:
| All I hear about is deep mind, when will they release a model
| I can interact with?
|
| That's the standard chatgpt set
| antondd wrote:
| Just realised the article is behind a soft paywall. Here's a
| LinkedIn post by a Deepmind engineer working on ADa:
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ada-ai-adapts-fast-humans-edw...
| mshake2 wrote:
| Maybe they should make a persuasive demo if they want people to
| care. ChatGPT isn't so hot right now because boring PR articles
| were written about its abilities. It's hot because you can try it
| and see for yourself. Basic showmanship.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| The problem for them isn't coming up with ChatGPT competitor.
| It's keeping their ads revenue.
| amf12 wrote:
| > Maybe they should make a persuasive demo if they want people
| to care.
|
| This is the right response for Google's AI news, but not
| Deepmind.
|
| Building products isn't Deepmind's purpose. They have
| essentially "demo'd" it by releasing the paper and simulation
| videos. They don't build any products. This research is
| absolutely irrelevant for most people right now, but hopefully
| will be used by other researchers to make progress.
|
| It's like saying "Stanford should build products and do demos
| instead of just releasing papers".
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| Google gives me Xerox PARC vibes wrt AI. Got to the insights
| first, way ahead of everyone else, but OpenAI is productizing
| faster (like Apple did with Xerox PARC's research).
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _OpenAI is productizing faster (like Apple did with Xerox
| PARC 's research)_
|
| what happens in cases like this is a slightly different
| dynamic what it seems on the surface. Apple, coming of huge
| success with the Apple ][ using the anemic but cheap 6502 8
| bit to build a low-end (compared to Xerox) mass market
| (compared to Xerox) product, was well positioned to
| capitalize/productize the next generation of more capable
| 16/32 bit chips without changing their business model or
| distribution channel. It's right place right time, plus
| "easier to improve from the bottom, than downgrade from the
| top".
|
| This idea was identified in a famous McKinsey study of the
| British motorcycle industry's loss of market share to low
| cost Japanese competition in the 1960's and 70's. The post
| WWII Japanese market developed to serve people who needed
| transportation but could not afford the leading British
| brands, not to mention autos. Once Japan had a successful
| motorcycle industry it was natural for them to export
| inexpensive bikes to Southeast Asia and South Asia. The
| British companies (Triumph, BSA, Norton) did not make much
| profit on the cheap bikes, they made their profit on the
| powerful luxury models, so they abandoned competing in the
| cheap sectors.
|
| But then another force comes into play: if you manufacture a
| large number of something (there is always more of the cheap
| things) you get all sorts of manufacturing advantages. If you
| figure out a way to use achieve sturdy construction with
| fewer nuts and bolts, you get to save those nickels over many
| many bikes which makes it worth your effort to be good at
| that. If 1 out of 100 of your bikes leaks oil, and you sell a
| million, you get a lot of complaints, and you fix it. (these
| are called "learning curve advantages", and they tend to be
| logarithmic, so by being 10x bigger, you get +something
| better)
|
| But who especially wants to buy sturdy, reliable transport
| (everybody) and is willing to pay a premium for it (rich
| people in the form of high margins)? So being the largest
| (and by definition the best) manufacturer of a product leaves
| you perfectly positioned to be the best high margin luxury
| supplier.
|
| Xerox was not asleep at the switch, they were just not a high
| volume low cost manufacturer with a presence in the consumer
| market, at the time when these learning curve
| manufacturing/marketing ideas had just been developed so they
| weren't used to thinking that way. Nor was it a case of the
| suits not listening to the engineers; the engineering ethos
| at Xerox was not "can we squeeze this on the smallest chip
| possible", it was "omg let's leverage Moore's law onto even
| bigger high end chips, compile into microcode!"
|
| I know it's popular to hate on MBAs here, but this is an
| example of what they learn, and why VC's might like to see an
| MBA on the team, this is the kind of talk they want to see in
| the business plan rather than an impossible dream.
| belter wrote:
| OpenAI and Microsoft will be hit by a big bus called GDPR.
|
| "Unveiling the Crucial 5 GDPR Obstacles of ChatGPT That Can't
| Be Ignored" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34709482
| wand3r wrote:
| I have no idea how OpenAI would look at this, and of course
| there are similar obstacles here re:copilot vs. gpl, but
| couldn't they just shut off European access.
|
| I think AI would be so important that Europe couldnt afford
| to not have AI. Wonder how this would resolve.
| GreedClarifies wrote:
| My guess is that the petty little bureaucratic tyrants in
| the EU would much rather deprive their subjects of new
| products than give up any sliver of their power.
|
| One could hope that this would cause a rebellion, but
| recent history suggests that the populace will go along
| with anything their lords decree.
| techpression wrote:
| Well power is toxic that way unfortunately, I'm happy
| we're having a bribery scandal right now (even if it's
| being ignored by much of the media) and that things like
| Chat Control is being brought up (https://www.patrick-
| breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/).
|
| EU will do a lot in the name of its subjects, but in the
| end it comes down to power and money. Anyone thinking it
| won't end up as a totalitarian forced unification of the
| member states are sorely mistaken, or viewing it within
| the context of a minuscule time frame.
| olivermuty wrote:
| Short reply: lol
|
| Longer reply: I love the EU so much. One of the few
| institutions taking big tech to task. I can roam cell
| operators at no extra cost, ensure that companies cant
| data mine me without my express permission and other
| wonderful tech oriented regulation.
|
| It is extremely narrow minded to believe that throwing
| all principle out the window is the only way to <<not
| stifle innovation>>.
|
| <<The lords decree>>, where does one even begin. The
| biggest fight against bigtech involving amongst others
| the cloud act that lets the us govt spy on anyone in
| complete secrecy is literally spearheaded by a common man
| [0].
|
| This entire post is either satire, and if so I ate it
| hook line and sinker... or it is some kind of privacy
| exploitation stockholm syndrome.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems
| WanderPanda wrote:
| You mix up privacy wrt to the state (which has the
| monopoly on violence) vs private organisations. Two very
| different cans of worms. The EU is determined to fight
| the latter while embracing the former (as its incentives
| would suggest)
| pjkundert wrote:
| You don't fight "big tech" by giving "big brother" all
| your liberty...
| olivermuty wrote:
| You clearly have no idea about how the european union
| works. It is a much lighter touch on society in general
| than the us is. We might not have as much gun freedom,
| but on pretty much every other scale I'd rate the EU
| higher than the US on <<liberty>>.
|
| No one is banning books about gay people in my kids
| school for example.
|
| Either way curtailing big tech with regulation has
| nothing to do with big brother. They are regularing
| companies, not individuals.
| pjkundert wrote:
| If you, personally, end up restricted from doing things
| you used to (pay for my software, for example) -- you
| gave up liberty for security, and now have neither.
|
| I'm Canadian, by the way. We now can go to prison for
| wanting to call our children the name we gave them at
| birth.
| csmpltn wrote:
| > "No one is banning books about gay people in my kids
| school for example."
|
| Check out some of the schools in Poland, or Hungary.
| Drakim wrote:
| This conversation is clearly talking about the good or
| bad that the EU does. Are those books banned because of
| the EU? Would they stop being banned if Poland or Hungary
| was not part of the EU?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| The US government similarly has nothing to do with states
| like Florida going off the deep end.
| olivermuty wrote:
| If anything, what would unban those books is pressure by
| the EU.
| 8note wrote:
| I think this is saying that all the good things in EU
| countries are the result of being in the EU, while none
| of the bad is?
| tough wrote:
| You've liberty to be poor, die without healthcare, or get
| rekt in court by a megacorp with infinite lawyer money
| typon wrote:
| The NSA is the biggest of Brothers in the world and
| supposedly the country keeps on innovating and big tech
| power is strongest here. How do you square that circle?
| [deleted]
| mstipetic wrote:
| Nuance - a subtle difference in or shade of meaning,
| expression, or sound.
| [deleted]
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Longer reply: I love the EU so much._
|
| As a EU citizen: You really shouldn't.
|
| They do occasionally pass decent legislature, but i fear
| GreedClarifies is likely correct that it's probably more
| about them wanting the power big tech is currently
| centralizing for themselves.
|
| For examples check the recent news from Belgium as
| they've uncovered recent corruption issues in the
| European Parliament. There is even an organization funded
| by the EU which is unapologetically treating political
| refugees as prisoners (putting them behind bars with
| literal cameras in their "living" space.
|
| There was a pretty good report on German state media
| about that topic, should have English subtitles though if
| you can't understand it https://youtu.be/tJMLNMlJkPw
|
| I am glad they're currently pushing back against big tech
| though, as FAANG is already speedrunning our society into
| a total dumbsterfire, but love to that organization is
| just misplaced. (Or should we call it MAMAA now? Meta,
| Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet Amazon)
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Even these monopolies are bound to be disrupted by
| competition (as we're likely about to see in the case of
| google)
| jessekv wrote:
| I've got a lot of complaints about the EU, but this one
| makes no sense.
| tester756 wrote:
| if it wasn't problem for Google, then why would for
| ChatGPT?
| fsh wrote:
| It isn't. No court has ever interpreted the GDPR in the
| bizarre way suggested in the linked article.
| pjkundert wrote:
| The great thing about the current-gen LLMs -- anybody will
| be able to run one on the next gen of hardware. We're
| within one order of magnitude of the capacity right now on
| retail hardware.
|
| The moment of transition from "data-centric" (big
| centralized system/database) to "agent-centric" (locally
| stored/run systems and identity, sharing arbitrary
| data/storage) has arrived.
|
| GDPR, LLM "guard rails", ... -- only the plebs will be
| affected by those.
| nateburke wrote:
| > The moment of transition from "data-centric" (big
| centralized system/database) to "agent-centric" (locally
| stored/run systems and identity, sharing arbitrary
| data/storage) has arrived.
|
| I agree. Use cases such as LLMs-as-backend-of-my-web-
| stack will move a lot of compute back to the edge of the
| network, eventually.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| I believe you could run GPT-2 at home now.
|
| Remember when OpenAI claimed that was too much power to
| allow open access to?
| pjkundert wrote:
| Benevolent overlords patting the filthy masses on the
| head.
| dkislyuk wrote:
| The LLM / foundation model industry will happily stay in
| the United States and ignore the stifling regulation of the
| EU if necessary. There is so much market share to capture
| domestically at the moment.
| croes wrote:
| In the US it will get sued for copyright violation and
| similar.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| New laws would have to outlaw fair use, that will likely
| not happen as the only country that ignores such laws
| will win, especially now that the cat is out of the bag.
| ben_w wrote:
| They can redefine fair use without removing it entirely.
| Thing like that happen all the time.
|
| Will it be effective? Dunno, but LLMs aren't as easy to
| duplicate or execute as films are to pirate or watch, and
| yet copyright law still gets enforced somewhat.
| missingdays wrote:
| Don't threaten the EU with good time
| rawoke083600 wrote:
| Lol you can have Crypto in E.U but not fancy new A.I,
| same how you can have A.I in USA but not Crypto :)
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| One day, we'll have crypto where "mining" is helping
| train the AI. It'll be allowed nowhere.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Who knows. Maybe it's GDPR whose getting hit by a bus.
| wyager wrote:
| At some point, US companies will get fed up with constantly
| being harassed by the EU and just give up on the relatively
| small (as in money, not population) European market
| entirely. The hostility is simply not worth it.
|
| For a sense of scale - the EU has 0 (zero) of the 14
| largest companies by market cap. Out of the next 25, only a
| handful are in the EU.
| tester756 wrote:
| Go ahead and bet your money on that
|
| If your prediction happens, then EU based
| startups/companies that'll fill the void will booom.
| ianbutler wrote:
| I like Europe, but a climate for entrepreneurship is not
| something you have.
| rowanajmarshall wrote:
| The world's third largest tech sector is in a European
| country (the UK), and the two country's bigger than it
| are literally continent-scale superstates with around 10x
| the GDP.
| tester756 wrote:
| That's irrelevant imo.
|
| If FAANG announced leaving EU, then somebody's stock
| would go up hard, at least on the beginning.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| And productivity would falter even more without Google
| and Apple...
| wyager wrote:
| Why do you think that there are 0 (zero) EU tech
| companies that have "boomed"?
| astrange wrote:
| The EU is set up to regulate already giant companies,
| which means it's not possible to create new ones because
| they can't afford the regulatory risk. (Mostly because
| the regulations are intended to troll American companies,
| not to do anything useful.)
|
| And there isn't sufficient venture capital to build up
| new ones either. Maybe they can all adopt Yandex and VK.
| tester756 wrote:
| >Mostly because the regulations are intended to troll
| American companies
|
| Which one?
| ESMirro wrote:
| It's just like reading the fan fiction on Macrumours. Any
| day Apple are going to leave the EU over the Digital
| Markets Act, any day now!
| max51 wrote:
| With AI, most failed products aren't just "late" at the game,
| they often never release anything at all. Most of the wild
| claims made by AI companies could be strait up lies and we
| would never know because no one other than the devs has laid
| eyes on it directly.
| GreedClarifies wrote:
| Not just showmanship, utility. ChatGPT has utility since "the
| common person" actually has access.
|
| Deepmind loves doing research and getting accolades from a
| fawning press while never allowing commoners to access their
| dear technology for fear that the rabble could somehow misuse
| it.
|
| Google, you lost your way.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rawoke083600 wrote:
| True ! Does anyone know if Blizzard got access or usage from
| AlphaStar afterwards?
|
| For example to improve the current a.i/bot in the game ?
| timgo wrote:
| It's open source.
|
| https://github.com/deepmind/alphastar
|
| Same with AlphaFold.
|
| Now people here complain that they don't sell APIs to
| proprietary models like OpenAI. They are a research lab
| after all.
| Jensson wrote:
| OpenAI five is gone as well, up until ChatGPT there were no
| difference how they operated these things.
| victor106 wrote:
| Exactly this.
|
| Makes us wonder where Google would be if Larry and Sergie
| didn't open it up to the public and we just kept hearing
| through the press that "there is this amazing search engine
| that works better than every other search engine".
|
| After the past decade of every damn startup "guru" advising
| to "just ship it", Google just couldn't follow that advice.
|
| Ultimately it doesn't matter how good chatgpt or Google's AI
| is, all that matters is who shipped it first and how they
| incorporating feedback in to the model.
| khmii wrote:
| [dead]
| alfor wrote:
| Exactly, they are too afraid of reputation risks.
|
| They sit on their golden goose and don't want anything to
| happen to it.
|
| When people understand how much they know about each one of
| us (with AI) they will be regulated.
| la64710 wrote:
| This is absolutely correct
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I'd absurd to see basic research criticized by its lack of
| showmanship, especially when looking at paywalled secondary
| reporting on it. Hype isn't the goal. In fact, hype and
| showmanship are generally counterproductive with research.
| That's why a paper with a title "Compound B associated with low
| concentration of stuff in mice" turns into "Science says coffee
| will kill you." Lack of showmanship and circus is a good thing
| here.
| Kiro wrote:
| This is exactly right. ChatGPT (and Copilot) didn't blow my
| mind because people told me about it. It blew my mind when I
| started messing around with it. Doesn't matter how good things
| sound in theory. All the things that made me a believer are
| things I haven't even told anyone. It's too "you need to try it
| for yourself" for me to even try explaining.
| impulser_ wrote:
| This is DeepMind, not Google. DeepMind is an AI research lab.
| They aren't a company. They solely do research. They don't
| produce products.
| rudasn wrote:
| > They don't produce products.
|
| That can be said about Google as well, and I think that's
| what parent meant to express.
| skybrian wrote:
| Hardly any scientific research has a demo for you to try. The
| job of researchers is to publish research and their primary
| audience is other researchers. We can read about it but they
| aren't marketers and they don't have a product to sell to you.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Organizing the world's information and keeping it inaccessible
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| Yeah... So many people miss the: "Show don't tell" That's for
| visual medium, for software it would be more like: "Touch,
| don't show"
|
| Especially with software, pretty much every programmer knows
| that sky is the limit, and that's why promises mean so little.
|
| In a way it's a similar problem to pre-orders.
|
| People need to try it to truly understand it and its value.
|
| Eg.: That new MMORPG looks amazing, but what's the gameplay
| like, because at the end of the day gameplay > graphics, if
| there's nothing to do except just the visuals people will get
| bored.
|
| And people usually forget the boring stuff.
| theknocker wrote:
| [dead]
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| If some software/AI is able to do something, I _expect_ it to be
| as fast or faster than a human because you can basically always
| throw more computing power at the problem.
|
| The important questions are (1) can the computer do it in the
| first place and (2) at what financial cost?
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| What they're addressing here is the first of your important
| questions. The answer to that question used to be, "well yes if
| it was trained to" and they're saying, "probably even though it
| doesn't know anything about that"
| lettergram wrote:
| So in a contrived environment where the AI is given the ability
| to train on its attributes (aka same simulation framework,
| different layout). It can effectively explore the layout and
| complete tasks at the human level.
|
| Perhaps there's only a few search algorithms and humans (and now
| this AI) are optimized to do it as well.
|
| One of my shower thoughts are that we're effectively recreating
| the wheel with AI. Yes it can be immensely powerful and
| outperform humans for specific tasks. However, humans are
| generalized and evolved to interact with the real world
| independently. I imagine an AI would effectively match a human in
| this regard someday, but it's worse as it can't generate energy
| from eating some plants or animals (ie naturally occurring solar
| generated food). The interconnected nature will let AI have an
| advantage for many tasks, no doubt, but humans are pretty well
| optimized for the real world. Imo it'll be hard to beat.
| chpatrick wrote:
| You can get an AI to do work for you at the click of a button
| at minimal cost. You can't do that with a human.
| astrange wrote:
| Sure you can, it's the order button on Amazon.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Isn't getting energy from food incredibly inefficient when you
| look at the entire system though?
|
| And while the plants themselves may be 'solar powered', the
| tractor used to plant them isn't. Neither is the factory where
| they made the fertilizer etc.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Well.. we are not a dead end for those nutrients, in that we
| excrete waste that isn't completely stripped of nutrition.
| This waste, treated properly, can be quite valuable to a
| variety of ecosystems.
| ccozan wrote:
| With a very few exceptions, all the energy on Earth is coming
| from the Sun, aka "solar power".
| belter wrote:
| All valid points. Then the title gets generalized as to
| "DeepMind AI as fast as humans in tasks not seen before..."
| missing the point of the constrained environment. This is the
| type of article that will do wonders for Google stock price,
| but nothing towards measuring if there is a leap forward on AI.
| lostmsu wrote:
| > However, humans are generalized
|
| In terms of subject matters, ChatGPT is way more generalized
| than humans.
| pavlov wrote:
| ChatGPT can only arrange symbols. It can't wipe a floor or
| dissect an insect or drive a car or give a massage or make
| people listen and do what it wants.
|
| It can tell you often convincing stories about how to do
| those things, but it has no means to enact any of it nor any
| internal motivation to try.
| iinnPP wrote:
| If you place an ICE on the floor it also doesn't do much.
|
| Plop Excel on a computer and see what it does on its own.
|
| Not seeing what ChatGPT can be tooled to do is simply a
| lack of imagination.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| A tool like that, for humans to wield, doesn't sound to
| me like something that is "more generalized than humans".
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wyager wrote:
| > ChatGPT can only arrange symbols.
|
| This is what like half the people in first world countries
| do all day.
|
| > It can't wipe a floor...
|
| There is no reason to suspect this is a technical
| limitation of the models we can build now, rather than a
| consequence of the fact that no one has bothered trying due
| to limitations on mechatronics.
|
| > but it has no means to enact any of it nor any internal
| motivation to try
|
| Any claims to this end are both/either A) purely
| speculative and B) ontologically nonsensical. It's also not
| really relevant.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > This is what like half the people in first world
| countries do all day.
|
| Not by choice. That is an artifice of our institutions.
|
| > Any claims to this end are both/either A) purely
| speculative and B) ontologically nonsensical. It's also
| not really relevant.
|
| It's speculative, and it's nonsense, and it's not
| relevant. This claim itself is ontologically nonsensical.
| breuleux wrote:
| > There is no reason to suspect this is a technical
| limitation of the models we can build now, rather than a
| consequence of the fact that no one has bothered trying
| due to limitations on mechatronics.
|
| I think the point still stands, if mechatronics turn out
| to be a more difficult problem than intelligence: we will
| need new models to overcome these limitations.
| saberience wrote:
| Well is there an ai that can dissect an insect or wipe a
| floor? Or do both without risking any accidents to nearby
| humans?
| 1024core wrote:
| > It can't wipe a floor or dissect an insect or drive a car
| or give a massage or make people listen and do what it
| wants.
|
| I have seen publications where a LLM like ChatGPT was mated
| with a robotic arm, and taught to give instructions to the
| arm to do whatever it wanted to do. I think this may be it:
| https://sites.research.google/palm-saycan
| sva_ wrote:
| > but it's worse as it can't generate energy from eating some
| plants or animals
|
| A machine can be worked 24/7 with no regard for their wellbeing
| whatsoever though.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Yes.. you just have to generate enough power 24/7 to keep it
| running. Does generating power have negative impacts for
| other peoples well being?
|
| AI will never be a free lunch.
| visarga wrote:
| Ah you mean like our hearts and lungs? How dare we treat them
| like machines?
| [deleted]
| habibur wrote:
| The key part :
|
| > The AI, called Adaptive Agent or AdA, works in a 3D virtual
| world where it is asked to solve tasks that involve navigating,
| planning and manipulating objects.
|
| Not in real world.
| mach1ne wrote:
| If it were a sufficiently realistic simulation it wouldn't
| matter. That being said, it most likely isn't.
| grogenaut wrote:
| Do they need legs to be realistic?
| panda88888 wrote:
| Looks like currently the agents interact in the simulated world
| only. Would be interesting when combined with robots from Boston
| Dynamics or similar and see how it learns to adapt and operate
| under real world environment and constraints.
| tehsauce wrote:
| Here's a video summary of the research:
| https://youtu.be/U93bUQ1roiw
| banashark wrote:
| This is a great walk-through for an outsider's perspective into
| the structure of the agents.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| I don't believe them because they won't release it to the public
| and let us see for ourselves and that says everything.
| V__ wrote:
| > solve tasks that involve navigating, planning and manipulating
| objects.
|
| Without some real examples, this is just PR talk. I could just as
| well say that "the Stockfish AI" is able to solve previously
| unseen tasks on a virtual board, moving pieces around, thinking
| ahead to navigate around and outsmart any human and non-human
| opponent. Doesn't say much.
| turingfeel wrote:
| What are the previously unseen tasks (the most important aspect
| of the above AI) involved the Chess engine Stockfish playing
| Chess?
| Jensson wrote:
| It hasn't seen every board position, it still plays well in
| positions it hasn't seen.
| margorczynski wrote:
| It's behind a paywall, any way to go past it? Also would be great
| if there was an actual paper or more serious article about it. I
| see a lot of this type of articles recently and most of them are
| wrong/hype/etc. and the only valuable part are the links to the
| sources.
|
| EDIT: Found these with Google:
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07608
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93bUQ1roiw
| ngrilly wrote:
| This article publicly available provides a summary:
| https://www.marktechpost.com/2023/01/24/a-new-transformer-ba...
| asim wrote:
| It's funny. The way deepmind is going about it, these AI agents
| are going to live in a total virtual world in which we then enter
| and participate. It's not clear that AI will actually immerse
| itself in the real world. While we find general uses for
| differently trained models, the whole robots being everywhere
| thing seems less likely than say a 3D metaverse we participate in
| using AR glasses so we can see these digital creatures. Could be
| totally wrong, could argue for the other case, it mostly doesn't
| matter. I just don't think our interactions with this technology
| will be physical.
| espadrine wrote:
| Nah. They need to walk before they can run.
|
| In 2016, their system could locate objects in a scene[0]. In
| 2017, it could answer questions about a scene[1]. In 2018, it
| could infer how a scene looks from any angle using a couple
| photos[2].
|
| Now, it can perform inference tasks in a 3D scene.
|
| Going to the real world will require more work! But they will
| be helped by converging existing advances[3].
|
| [0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08575.pdf
|
| [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.01427.pdf
|
| [2]: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/neural-scene-representation-
| an...
|
| [3]: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/stacking-our-way-to-more-
| gener...
| Havoc wrote:
| Not sure the distinction matters given how the two are blurring
| together. See digital twins etc.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| It's not gonna happen, Mark. Just drop it.
| mawadev wrote:
| I personally don't believe a single thing about chatgpt and any
| ai that pops up around it. To me it's the same as google search -
| instead of truly enriching our lives, it simply made us dependent
| and then more lazy to the point where we rather search instead of
| thinking for a brief moment. Now that google became unusable, ai
| is supposed to step in or what...
|
| I hope the volumes of worthless content it generates destroy the
| internet as we know it, so we can finally move on to better
| things and start building communities again.
| chillfox wrote:
| Communities never went away, they are all over the place. I
| guess you got too lazy to seek them out?
| d0mine wrote:
| Google search is still immensely helpful for a lot of tasks.
|
| ChatGPT even today performs some tasks well e.g., extracting
| the intent from a natural language query, or generating text
| that on the surface looks human. It is often inaccurate on most
| tasks but it can I believe become better on some tasks to have
| a great economic effect.
|
| Most most likely we won't get AGI though, and that's great
| because AGI that is not restricted by the human scalp is an
| existential threat. I'm not talking jobs, It is about surviving
| as a species.
| revskill wrote:
| Skeptials keep being skeptial. It's not good for all use cases,
| but it's your problem to find good use case for it.
|
| It's the same as: all juniors can write code. Only senior can
| write code that's clean, simple to understand.
|
| Mind you, talking to ChatGPT is easier to talking to real
| human. Because most of the time, it understands your intent
| very well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-11 23:02 UTC)