Beep Boop Bip
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 2260)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, CSS, EPUB, FLAC, FLV, GIF, JPG, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, RAR, TORRENT, TXT, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 815 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 161811634729.jpg - (7.33MB , 1600x2300 , eefdb99c068cdc0d245e8a15f77d2223.jpg )
2260 No. 2260 [Edit]
Surprised this doesn't exist yet.

So what do you think the future of AI is? Do you think eventually, we'll be able to give an AI general instructions and have it program something based on that? Like "write a play station 5 emulator" and then it would actually be able do it? Would that be a good or bad thing?
Expand all images
>> No. 2261 [Edit]
Current "AI" is mostly just function optimization with most of the cleverness happening on the human side as they find new network architecures. I think I posted a rant somewhere on /navi/ a long time back about this, but basically at the moment AI is mostly just marketing hype. If, the really surprising thing is that function optimization actually works well enough given enough data.; it's not at all obvious that this should be the case apriori. Of course in reality it's not "completely" black-box optimization; you still have to design the structure of the network, and that implicitly bakes in certain things (for instance, the fact that CNNs use convolutions in the first place or that transformer based networks have the attention layer – in both cases you're explicitly setting up the structure so that locality matters).

There's a wonderful talk by Max Tegmark on why "deep, cheap learning works so well" [1] and it's been a long time since i watched it but I think the gist was that deep learning works because real-world data has robust symmetries (maybe in some high-dimensional feature space) and in optimizing loss functions these networks do end up capturing those symmetries. That is the real surprise about ML; for instance, the fact that GPT works astonishingly well tells you more about the redundancy of language than it does about the "power of AI".

It's interesting to see how far this has been pushed, but my (layman's) hunch is that there'll be another AI winter (the last one pulled the curtains on symbolic AI approach) soon as this starts to bear less fruit. At the very least there will need to be some serious improvements in energy efficiency since current techniques don't scale well.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MdSE-N0bxs

>we'll be able to give an AI general instructions and have it program something based on that
GPT-3 can sort of do rudimentary code generation https://twitter.com/sharifshameem/status/1282676454690451457?lang=en

But it's more of a party trick at the moment since if you push it further it will break. I do not think we will be able to do something on the scale of "write a play station 5 emulator" for a long time (a century at least) considering it takes even a team of experts maybe a few years to do this.
>> No. 2262 [Edit]
File 161812287736.png - (43.59KB , 480x320 , b6b3c8b65022ce717690e0febf90769c.png )
2262
>>2261
>I do not think we will be able to do something on the scale of "write a play station 5 emulator" for a long time (a century at least) considering it takes even a team of experts maybe a few years to do this.
What about with neuromorphic computing? Do you think a computer that functions like and has abilities comparable to that of a human is really a century away? I've heard much shorter predictions than that. Even if a computer was only as capable as a human, it doesn't take breaks or require pay. You can set it to work on a task 24/7, which makes it more efficient by default. Something that would take a team of humans years may take a team of human-like computers months.

Post edited on 10th Apr 2021, 11:39pm
>> No. 2263 [Edit]
>>2262
Hadn't heard of neuromorphic computing before, and from skimming Wikipedia it seems like it's trying to simulate neuronal connectome with dedicated hardware? Seems good from an energy perspective, but you run into the same issue of determining the proper configuration of those neurons. I.e. current ML techniques are bottlenecked by training, not inference.

Maybe if there's some sudden breakthrough and we can map the human connectome in intricate detail and replicate that in hardware then maybe there's a chance. But considering that they haven't been able to simulate C. elegans (see the openworm project) I don't have much faith in this approach.

>really a century away
Maybe 50 years if you want to be optimistic? But that's betting on discovering a paradigm shift within those 50 years. Considering that even modern deep nets are really just an outgrowth of 1980s tech (just souped up with some killer GPUs), that seems like a leap.
>> No. 2264 [Edit]
I'm not really too up to speed on AI stuff, but it's my understand that they're only as good as their training set; a YouTube channel I watch made a funny, but insightful, comment about that: Tesla's self-driving works exactly as intended. It drives like a self-absorded and inattentive human Tesla driver would, which is exactly the problem since the training data for Tesla's self-driving is Tesla drivers...

Anyways, I think the future of AI would be to develop them so that they require less training than is currently necessary to achieve suitable results. For instance, a human only really needs to see a stop sign a few times to recognize them and learn what they mean, whereas AI-based image recognition requires millions of examples from different viewpoints and often needs weeks or months of training before reaching an adequate point, and yet they're still fooled by simple things regardless. Even if our "AI" are still relatively dumb and require training, needing less of it will surely help for more advanced things I think. Sort of like how geneticists study species that have short lifecycles, like mayflies to gain insight into longer lived species like humans.

>>2262
>neuromorphic computing
I bring this up whenever I have the chance, but I think it'd probably be better just to grow actual cultures of neurons rather than trying to mimic biology. Rat neurons flying aircraft sim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w41gH6x_30

Post edited on 11th Apr 2021, 12:18am
>> No. 2265 [Edit]
>>2264
Humans can only do that because they have a lot of past experience to go off of though. Once trained on a base corpus, neural networks can be fine-tuned for a more specialized task without requiring as much data (transfer learning). There's also the field of one-shot learning.

Post edited on 11th Apr 2021, 12:36am
>> No. 2266 [Edit]
File 161812698313.jpg - (1.68MB , 1200x1200 , 9aabc35cc96338bb061522d750db1094.jpg )
2266
>>2263
Maybe it wouldn't have to actually be exactly like a human being("proper configuration"). Maybe something with enough neurons in some sort of configuration would be suitable enough?

>>2264
>I think it'd probably be better just to grow actual cultures of neurons
The problem is those need to be harvested, grown and replaced since they can't be kept alive outside a real body for too long. Growing also has a high failure rate. I think the size of cultures is limited, so you'd have to interface a lot of cultures somehow for a large number to cooperate. On top of that, they're vulnerable to harmful microbes. Doing it long term and on large scale wouldn't be practical I think.

There's a neuromorpic computer(Pohoiki Springs) which can simulate 100M neurons, which I think is far higher than has been achieved with neuron cultures. Here's a nice demonstration of the chip it uses to quickly distinguish between two different objects https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDKnt9ldXv0
Description of chip used
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/loihi
>> No. 2267 [Edit]
>>2260
Current AI tech will never be able to program something truly novel, since it just apes what came before.
To program a PS5 emulator you'd need an actual understanding of PS5 architecture first, which current AI wouldn't have without being trained on a PS5 emulator.
That being said, current AI already is and will be increasingly used for omnipresent surveillance. For our own good, of course. It's also replacing more and more jobs.
Better AI is increasingly worse for humanity, and if we ever get to the point where it can do truly novel things, aka have advanced sentience, we're beyond fucked, because it'll improve itself. And once any AI is better than humans, we won't be able to contain it since no system is unhackable.

We should stop with AI research while that's still an option. Soulless sentience is not something we should ever strive to create. Any real AI would inherently be more alien to us than any Alien. Peace would never be an option.
>> No. 2268 [Edit]
File 161817314385.jpg - (188.22KB , 651x1280 , 1618151397876.jpg )
2268
>>2267
>To program a PS5 emulator you'd need an actual understanding of PS5 architecture first
That's what reverse-engineering and decompilation are for.

>Peace would never be an option.
AI has no reason to act in self-interest or dislike doing what others tell it to. I'd trust an AI more than another person. Hell, if humans attacked an AI, it would have no reason to defend itself.
>> No. 2270 [Edit]
>>2268
You could go under the assumption that there is some algorithm in the future that can have the AI adapt to situations very quickly. If the AI is tasked to doing something, it'll find any option to keep doing it. If the AI is trained to attack or learns on its own that this is an option, it may be possible. For now, reinforcement learning is incredibly slow and stupid, so it isn't possible for an AI to learn this on its own. That being said, someone could train attacking humans as an option or there is a better or extremely improved method for reinforcement learning and the AI is capable of learning in real-time. I doubt this will be possible in an extremely long time, but who knows what the future holds.
>> No. 2277 [Edit]
File 161971840653.jpg - (931.07KB , 1295x1800 , abadf7967af906d16d0cbc37cb66ce30.jpg )
2277
Here's a related question: do you think humans will interact with their computer via ai in the future? Voice commands do exist now, but they aren't that smart. In the future, could a person say out loud
"open up directory x" and the ai would be able to do that for them? Or maybe even "copy file y in folder x". If the ai isn't sure of something, maybe it could even ask follow up questions.
>> No. 2278 [Edit]
>>2277
I suspect this will be possible (in fact it's an easier task than general AI since the set of things you can do with a given application is limited). But for experienced users, interacting directly with the computer is always going to be quicker than providing mouse commands: i.e. I can drag/drop a file to the trashcan faster than it takes me to say the words.

It might be more useful for running complex queries though: "trim this video to the first 10 seconds and create a gif from that" is a lot easier than trying to remember the right command.

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]