[HN Gopher] Why transformative artificial intelligence is hard t...
___________________________________________________________________
Why transformative artificial intelligence is hard to achieve
Author : hunglee2
Score : 29 points
Date : 2023-07-30 17:57 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thegradient.pub)
(TXT) w3m dump (thegradient.pub)
| mistermann wrote:
| "Why _many human beings believe /predict_ transformative
| artificial intelligence is really, really hard to achieve
| _according to what we 've thought of so far_" would be a more
| accurate title.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| > We could be headed off in the wrong direction altogether. If
| even some of our hurdles prove insurmountable, then we may be far
| from the critical path to AI that can do all that humans can.
|
| humans can go insane and start putting memories and thoughts
| together in ways that don't make sense in any logical or
| mathematical way
|
| perhaps Skynet will be born the first time someone tries voltage-
| glitching an AI-enabled padlock
| lkrubner wrote:
| We should ask, when will AI make a discovery on its own? For
| instance, computers should be able to understand numbers, and run
| analysis on numbers. Computers have complete access to every fact
| that humans know about numbers. So numbers should be the first
| place that we should expect to see genuine innovation from AI.
| This is a simple test for the moment that AI is able to make
| original contributions to our society: when can AI come up with a
| new thesis about numbers, and then build an original proof,
| something that can be published in the major, peer-reviewed math
| journals.
|
| Until AI can do that, we have to admit that it's not really aware
| or sentient or any of the other more ambitious things that have
| recently been claimed for it.
|
| Can AI teach us anything new about the pattern of prime numbers?
|
| Can AI develop an original proof for the shape of shadows in high
| dimensional spaces?
|
| Can AI creatively prove a new limit to mathematics?
|
| There are 2 researchers in AI who deserve more attention: Kenneth
| O. Stanley and Joel Lehman. They wrote a great book: Why
| Greatness Cannot Be Planned. They look at the limits of utility
| functions and explain the importance of novelty. As an antidote
| to some of the hype around AI, I strongly recommend this book:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Why-Greatness-Cannot-Planned-Objectiv...
| lucubratory wrote:
| >This is a simple test for the moment that AI is able to make
| original contributions to our society: when can AI come up with
| a new thesis about numbers, and then build an original proof,
| something that can be published in the major, peer-reviewed
| math journals.
|
| >Until AI can do that, we have to admit that it's not really
| aware or sentient or any of the other more ambitious things
| that have recently been claimed for it.
|
| We have to admit no such thing, that is an absurdly high bar.
| The vast majority of humanity has not produced an original
| mathematical proof worthy of being published in a peer-reviewed
| math journal, and realistically it isn't possible for the vast
| majority of humanity to do so. Nevertheless, we are essentially
| all sentient/aware. "If it can't generate new and novel math
| that can pass peer review, it's not aware or sentient" is a
| moving of the goalposts so far and fast it should be giving you
| windburn.
| DennisP wrote:
| I've started to think of LLMs as not so much AI as collective
| intelligence. An LLM aggregates a huge amount of human-
| generated information and thinking into one convenient semi-
| intelligent entity, without doing much really original thinking
| of its own (so far).
|
| But this alone is potentially profound. Better ways to be
| collectively smarter could itself accelerate change. Vernor
| Vinge's famous essay "The Coming Technological Singularity"
| wasn't just about AI; he also suggested collective intelligence
| as a way the singularity could happen.
|
| https://edoras.sdsu.edu/~vinge/misc/singularity.html
| K0balt wrote:
| I am of the opinion that AI is neither truly artificial in
| nature nor intelligent, in the way that we imagine
| intelligence.
|
| But AI is capable of doing the things you mentioned, perhaps
| not on that scale just yet, but certainly in principle.
|
| The reason being, that transformer AI in LLM models is actually
| just an engine for parsing human intelligence.
|
| As the engine improves, it will appear "smarter", but it is
| still just parsing its way through the n-dimensional memetic
| matrix that is human language and culture. .... Just like we
| do.
|
| Unless there exists a superintelligence expressed in that data
| set, AI will not express superintelligence in the way we would
| expect.
|
| AI does express superintelligence though. In its ability to
| carry on coherent conversations with thousands of people
| simultaneously on a diverse range of subjects and create
| documents and code at the speed of conversation.
|
| Right now it is hobbled by limitations of the parsing engine
| and an inflexibility of not being able to aggregate new
| knowledge, but those things are improving and being worked on,
| just not ready for public access yet.
| Legend2440 wrote:
| It already has done that. The four-color theorem was proved by
| computer all the way back in the 70s.
| g42gregory wrote:
| I recall that DeepMind's AI discovered a new type of Sorting
| Algorithm. Sorting is one of the most "trafficked" area of CS
| research, so I would say it's a true discovery.
| interroboink wrote:
| I think you're referring to this one?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36228125
|
| (underlying article:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06004-9)
|
| Certainly computer-aided proofs have been a thing for a
| while; I wonder where one draws the line between "the AI made
| a new proof" and "we build a system that proved X"? Which I
| guess really gets at the more basic question "what is an AI"?
| wslh wrote:
| I think one line is: you ask the computer about a problem
| in a declarative way (e.g. Z3) and the computer came up
| with a solution or a description of where it is blocked by
| the problem with potential areas of attack.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Does the protein folding stuff from DeepMind count?
| sdenton4 wrote:
| High school students found to be non-sentient by AI critics.
| Film at 11.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| High schoolers come up with new ideas all the time. AI is
| just generic scenarios that are mathematical average of what
| you'd expect. It's really reductionist to say people are
| that, betrays a certain cynicism about humanity
| moffkalast wrote:
| Those new ideas are hardly ever better than a string of
| words probabilistically drawn from a bag. Saying that AI
| can't think the same things we do betrays a kind of human
| exceptionalism that's been a part of AI criticism forever.
| The bar is always one step higher, like some kind of
| mathematical function that approaches infinity as
| capabilities improve.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-30 23:01 UTC)