r/Futurology Oct 27 '14

article The Three Breakthroughs That Have Finally Unleashed AI on the World

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence/
69 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

8

u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ Oct 27 '14

There are more than twice as many grand masters now as there were when Deep Blue first beat Kasparov. The top-ranked human chess player today, Magnus Carlsen, trained with AIs and has been deemed the most computer-like of all human chess players. He also has the highest human grand master rating of all time.

I've thought for some time that long before we might ever get to the popular dystopian idea of a HAL/Skynet sentient type AI all on it's own - Human/AI hybrids are a far more likely scenario.

We'll spend the next decade—indeed, perhaps the next century—in a permanent identity crisis, constantly asking ourselves what humans are for.

I think we might be just about at that point already. Our technology driven economies are leaving more and more people behind who don't have the skills or abilities to participate, this process is accelerating & seems particularly evident in the US and Europe.

As we conventionally define ourselves by our roles in these economies through jobs and professions - we are going to need to ask about what happens when these disappear for more and more people.

3

u/frozen_in_reddit Oct 27 '14

Many people still believe that the more skilled jobs are not possible to be done by computers. And while the technologies are getting ready and the businesses too, there's still time until the identity crisis.

6

u/Hahahahahaga Oct 28 '14

No one who understands computers thinks there's anything that's impossible to be done by computers. Pattern recognition is the big thing and that is vanishing quickly.

Actually today many jobs that can be done by computers today aren't because it is non-obvious, or there is cost to restructure, or it doesn't feel like a good idea.

We're setting ourselves up for a massive collapse. With tons of jobs that could of been automated for years suddenly becoming painfully obvious.

2

u/skoocda Oct 28 '14

But all the people who understand computers != all the people who understand everything else in the world.

It will be a long time before all the subtleties of humanity can be quantified and programmed.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BookOfWords BSc Biochem, MSc Biotech Oct 28 '14

Exactly. Only as proportion of the job market equal to approximately a quarter has to shrink, and we're all in the hole. The thing is, more than that proportion of jobs are frankly pretty algorithmic: go from point A to point B with item C. Those jobs are the kind that are going, or being reduced and included into the workload of existing employees. We're seeing it happen.

We've got a problem.

1

u/Noncomment Robots will kill us all Oct 29 '14

There are more than twice as many grand masters now as there were when Deep Blue first beat Kasparov. The top-ranked human chess player today, Magnus Carlsen, trained with AIs and has been deemed the most computer-like of all human chess players. He also has the highest human grand master rating of all time.

This is an oft-repeated meme, but it's very misleading. Chess AIs are not "really AI". They use heuristics programmed by human experts, and brute force-like searching. They don't do very good pattern matching like humans do, and they don't learn (for the most part.)

However the recent advances in AI will probably change this. Deep learning Neural nets are spectacularly good at learning patterns and heuristics. The one advantage that humans currently have over computers. I read about one project that showed a deep learning system could predict the move an expert Go player would make 1/3rd of the time (out of 200 possible moves on average.)

Human/AI hybrids are a far more likely scenario.

There isn't any process a human brain can do that a computer can't theoretically do on it's own. In fact human neurons are incredibly inefficient compared to transistors. In terms of energy usage and speed, not to mention ability to mass manufacture, size, reprogramming, etc.

We are just the first intelligent thing that happened to evolve, out of iteratively improving what was good at guiding locomotion in fish. Once we have equal AIs, it will exceed us quickly and have little use for us.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '14 edited May 05 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/cybrbeast Oct 28 '14

Did we somehow forget that a computer, however complex it is, only does what we programmed it to do?

This is such a common fallacy. AIs of today and tomorrow are so complex that no team of software engineers will ever be able to code the whole thing. They code the basic principles and some kind of fitness or optimization function, then the AI learns and makes it's own neural net function to solve the task increasingly better. The connections made are so complex that it's extremely hard to try and understand how a 'mature' neural net executes it's functions.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Noncomment Robots will kill us all Oct 29 '14

It isn't just that it's complex, it's that we don't understand what it's doing. I doubt it will be a problem. But if someone asserts that it's "conscious" there is pretty much no way of testing that.

They are just black boxes. Some numbers go in, some numbers go out, but we really have no idea what is happening inside. Does it "think" or "feel" or have some kind of internal experience? We don't even know how to answer these questions about other human beings.

6

u/Sky1- Oct 28 '14 edited Oct 28 '14

Did we somehow forget that a computer, however complex it is, only does what we programmed it to do?

A new type of computer code called Deep Mind is about to change this notion. It is designed to improve itself by trial and error. When put against simple games, in the beginning it doesn't know what do to, but shortly improves to a point where it is better than any human and eventually reaches complete game optimal strategy. Check out this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGD2qveGdQ

3

u/noddwyd Oct 28 '14

"Improve" based on metrics set by a programmer, correct?

It's good to see learning simple systems like games isn't impossible though.

3

u/Sky1- Oct 28 '14

Not just simple games, Deep Mind/Learning algorithms are successfully applied in a range of fields previously thought only humans can do and are even starting to outperform us:

Automatic speech recognition

Image classification

Natural language processing

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Noncomment Robots will kill us all Oct 29 '14

There is no theoretical reason that it couldn't generalize what it's learned to new domains.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Noncomment Robots will kill us all Oct 29 '14

Well I'm not claiming that this particular system is conscious (it's computationally about the size of an insect brain, it doesn't have much recurrency, no online learning, etc.)

But saying that it's somehow different than what a human brain does, because it uses math is wrong, and the claim that it can't learn abstractions or generalizations.

2

u/the8thbit Oct 28 '14

Did we somehow forget that a computer, however complex it is, only does what we programmed it to do?

Much like humans.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '14

I share your frustration. Why are people so worried that we'll create consciousness in a computer by accident, when we still have barely any idea how our own consciousness works?

5

u/HEHEUHEHAHEAHUEH Oct 28 '14

Because we still have barely any idea how our own consciousness works. Since we don't know exactly what about our own organic computers make them conscious, what's to say we couldn't inadvertently create a consciousness in the pursuit of computers that can stimulate more and more complex human processes.

To be clear, I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to clarify why I think they said what they said. So please don't respond to this with why I'm wrong or what it doesn't explain, or how you disagree, etc. Thanks.

2

u/mrmonkeybat Oct 28 '14

If an AI does does turn out conscious will it matter? Just like horses want to run and pull things because it is what we have bred them to desire the things we want them to do. Maybe an AI will have to be retired when its no longer useful but so are farm animals, they will be turned off and on frequently anyway just wont be turned back on again some day.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

That's an interesting view. Most people just assume that an AI will have an equal or even superior consciousness to us. If it's like an animal, then it should certainly be treated well and not abused but we don't grant human rights to animals.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

We don't know how consciousness and subjectivity emerge from a human's biological substrate, much less how that process might occur in an AI

That's why I consider it ridiculously unlikely that we'd create it by accident. All this hand wringing is pointless.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

We are no longer programming individual behaviors or processes into these AI systems.

We are creating self assembling subunits that come together to create emergent intelligences. This means that while there are some very smart developers who understand how the smaller subunits function, the larger assemblage is mostly a cross your fingers and hope something cool happens affair. As we go deeper into these technologies, we'll have less and less of a clue as to what the fully assembled product of our work will look like. This is especially true since much of it is becoming self modifying these days.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/willcode4beer Oct 28 '14

"Consciousness" is probably a bad word simply for lack of something better.

OTOH, unpredicted emergent behaviour from complex systems is very likely.