Slashdot Mirror
Wired Founding Editor Now Challenges 'The Myth of A Superhuman AI' (backchannel.com)
Wired's founding executive editor Kevin Kelly wrote a 5,000-word takedown on "the myth of a superhuman AI," challenging dire warnings from Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk about the potential extinction of humanity at the hands of a superintelligent constructs. Slashdot reader mirandakatz calls it an "impeccably argued debunking of this pervasive myth." Kelly writes:
Buried in this scenario of a takeover of superhuman artificial intelligence are five assumptions which, when examined closely, are not based on any evidence...
1.) Artificial intelligence is already getting smarter than us, at an exponential rate.
2.) We'll make AIs into a general purpose intelligence, like our own.
3.) We can make human intelligence in silicon.
4.) Intelligence can be expanded without limit.
5.) Once we have exploding superintelligence it can solve most of our problems...
If the expectation of a superhuman AI takeover is built on five key assumptions that have no basis in evidence, then this idea is more akin to a religious belief -- a myth
Kelly proposes "five heresies" which he says have more evidence to support them -- including the prediction that emulating human intelligence "will be constrained by cost" -- and he likens artificial intelligence to the physical powers of machines. "[W]hile all machines as a class can beat the physical achievements of an individual human...there is no one machine that can beat an average human in everything he or she does."
Kelly proposes "five heresies" which he says have more evidence to support them -- including the prediction that emulating human intelligence "will be constrained by cost" -- and he likens artificial intelligence to the physical powers of machines. "[W]hile all machines as a class can beat the physical achievements of an individual human...there is no one machine that can beat an average human in everything he or she does."
Because intelligence as a single-dimensioned parameter is a myth.
We already of have software with super-human information processing capabilities; and we're constantly adding more kinds of software that outperforms humans in specific tasks. Ultimately we'll have AIs that are as versatile has humans too. But "just as versatile" doesn't mean "good at the same things".
So it's probably true that software is getting smarter at exponential rates (and humans aren't getting smarter as far as I can see), but only in certain ways.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
there is no one machine that can beat an average human in everything he or she does
Neither can most humans. There is no such thing as an average human. Every individual human specializes, and increasingly so as they get older (or they do not improve). It is a pervasive strawman to require AIs to "beat" an average human when the same quality isn't used to judge humans.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
... I'm glad I did not RTFA.
> 1.) Artificial intelligence is already getting smarter than us, at an exponential rate
Nobody who knows anything says that. We don't have real AI at all yet, just expert systems and a few interesting decision algorithms.
> 2.) We'll make AIs into a general purpose intelligence, like our own.
Of course we will. (Why would anyone make a phone that is also a web browser, a camera, an appointment tracker, a video game machine, a music player, a movie player, a flashlight, a compass, a map, a light level sensor, and a motion sensor?)
If you've figured out AI, you go general as soon as you can, because you get everything in one box.
>3.) We can make human intelligence in silicon
Meat is not special. In fact, we have a lot more reason to believe we'll be able to build an intelligence in silicon that is more efficient than evolution built with meat that to believe it's impossible because [insert magical thinking].
> 4.) Intelligence can be expanded without limit.
Lots of singularity nuts may think this, but again, anyone who knows anything about the universe will understand there must be a finite limit. We don't have any reason to believe humans are anywhere near it - and we could at least expect to make an AI as smart as the smartest human ever, and then take out the unnecessary bits that slowed that person down. Then up the clock rate.
> 5.) Once we have exploding superintelligence it can solve most of our problems
Most of the problems that can be solved with thought and not action and where cooperation with implementing the solution can be reasonably expected.
In short, Wired's founding executive editor Kevin Kelly is (at least in this instance) a buffoon speaking of things he does not understand sufficiently well to be speaking of them from a public platform.
The first three assumptions in this article have already been met sufficiently well enough to debunk the Wired article. AlphaGo has displayed superhuman intelligence in the first three areas of assumptions. 1) AlphaGo exploded on the scene by beating world class Go players much faster and much earlier than expected. Exponentially is a loaded word. e^0.0000001 is an exponential growth rate. So let's not quibble about how exponential the growth rate is.
2) AlphaGo is a general purpose learning tool. Just listen to the lectures and articles penned by the DeepMind team.
3) Alphago has displayed human-like intelligence, as claimed by the Go professionals it has played. They have said that AlphaGo plays like a human player.
4) If you take the fourth assumption literally, AI's intelligence is going to expand infinitely. Talking about infinity in human terms is unreasonable. Yes, AI's intelligence will expand.
5) The fifth assumption can be argued many ways. Some problems are not solvable due to their paradoxical nature. Other problems are subjective and are uniquely unsolvable by some individuals, but not by all individuals. It is a matter of time before a general purpose AI program will solve subjective emotional problems. Whether all human beings accept the solutions is subjective and open to speculation.
The human population is composed of experts, with divisions of labor. It is not unreasonable for AI programs to have areas of expertise.
AlphaGo is not a "general purpose" learning mechanism. It won't ever write sonnets meaningful to humans, or be able to to dance, or even employ symbolic differentiation.
It is a really nice toolset, and it is able to solve a task which is difficult for humans, but so does Google or your high-school calculator when you calculate sin(1.2).
It won't ever go beyond the computational underpinnings of playing Go-like games: evaluating game positions and calculating game trees. It won't ever say 'forget it, I'd rather be drinking beer with my buddies', which is an intelligent thing to do for most of us with respect to playing Go.
There's nothing human-like about AlphaGo, except that it solves a problem relevant to humans; the calculator example comes in mind.
I'd be thrilled to know what kind of specific major human problems you'd consider AI-approachable, because I currently only see a bunch of more or less advanced mechanisms that are fine-tuned to solve very specific computationally well-defined problems, and most human problems are not computationally well defined.
Your Points... #1. Fuel efficiency - The Lupo 3l, a Real world 78mpg, vs the model Ts reported 13-21... Yes I would say we are doing much better. Also considering that we have even made a plane that can fly around the world on NO fossil fuels of any kind. #2 Cheap Space Travel - Nobody said taking the entire environment of the Earth with you in simulated fashion was going to be cheap, or easy... That certainly does NOT mean we have made no discovery or achievement in space and exploration. Just the opposite. We are exploring FAR more of the observable universe than we EVER have, and the new wide field telescope is soon to completely change the way we look at the stars in the night sky and observable universe at large. #3 CPU Speed Plateau - Mostly correct, however, parallel computing and quantum computing are already changing the game. Making engineers think and program in radically new ways. The tides of change do ebb and flow. That does NOT mean they have some how halted. The laws of physics used to be something we could ONLY theorize, as we believed there was no real tangible way to TEST those theories. The LHC and CERN have shown us that this is not so. Same goes for the Photon and Graviton. Major Accomplishments in the modern era that change our understanding of physics on a "Daily" basis... So, yes and no... #4. Transportation speeds in the past 50-60 years in Both Air and Land Speed have BOTH had their bar raised MUCH higher than what was possible 50-60 years ago... By nearly 1000MPH in the Air since 1957, and around 360MPH on the Land in roughly the same timeframe.. So #4 is just plain False :-) New technologies do not "STOP" improving because a limit of physics has been hit... We simply start thinking in 3 dimensions or in radically new ways that the earth has never seen. Its all in the history books my friend. The Limitations of Physics are only limitations, because we do not yet fully understand the forces that created this Universe. But that too, is RAPIDLY changing. The Fields of Physics and Cosmology are discovering new tangible real world methods to verify the theory and turn it into facts we can work with. These perceived limitations are the result of a closed mind, not rooted in science. There are no limitations, just things we do not yet understand. Your knowledge of history is also lacking... Maybe Do your homework before trolling next time. K Anonymous? :-P Sources: http://www.motortrend.com/news... - - http://www.solarimpulse.com/ad... - http://www.gutenberg.cc/articl... - http://www.landspeedrecord.org...
I'm not sure whether it is discomfort at the idea of having a computer call them silly, a deep belief that humanity is somehow special in a special way (carefully defined in undefinable terms) or just a deep and enduring lack of imagination. Between AlphaGo beating Lee Sodel, the cancer treatments being proposed by Watson and the rise of driver-less cars we are seeing many supposedly impossible roles being taken over by software.
The five assumptions noted basically are basically denial ... reinforced with more denial. The evidence in a number of areas is in. Computers and software routinely appear in locations doing things predicted to be impossible. Computing capability keeps exceeding predictions.
Arguably the one valid assumption made is that intelligence is computable. If it is, the Church-Turing thesis gives the useful theoretical result that anything computable can be run on a UTM. It seems likely that what will end up happening is that the deniers keep arguing the point on what 'intelligence' is even after the AI they deny being possible has become bored with the discussion and moved on to more interesting pastimes.
If people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk are unrealistic in one direction, this person seems unrealistic in the other direction. He's basically betting against technological progress. And that's usually a losing bet, at least over long enough time periods.
1.) Artificial intelligence is already getting smarter than us, at an exponential rate.
Computers are already better than us at many tasks. That's been true for ages. And they're continuing to improve while we aren't. The set of tasks that computers are better at is constantly growing. I don't know of any fundamental limits to prevent them from eventually becoming better than us at the remaining tasks too. So it seems pretty likely they eventually will.
2.) We'll make AIs into a general purpose intelligence, like our own.
It's hard to even define what a "general purpose intelligence" means. But anything a human brain can do, computers will probably eventually be able to do it too.
3.) We can make human intelligence in silicon.
We can certainly make intelligence in silicon. We've already done it. Whether you consider it to be "human intelligence" or "inhuman intelligence" is kind of beside the point. If a computer can do something, whether it does it in the same way a human does is just an implementation detail.
4.) Intelligence can be expanded without limit.
I don't know of anyone who's claiming that. Where does he get this from? Anyway, the claim isn't that computers will advance without limit, only that they'll surpass humans.
5.) Once we have exploding superintelligence it can solve most of our problems...
Um, no. That's not at all what they're claiming. We certainly hope that it will solve many problems, but Gates, Musk, et al. are warning it could also create huge problems.
emulating human intelligence "will be constrained by cost"
Computers are cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. Humans are expensive and staying expensive. That's why automation has become such a big deal. Here again he seems to be betting against technological progress.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
So, are you saying that reinforcement learning is intrinsically limited, or that AlphaGo is limited to the domain of Go? Remember, humans also use reinforcement learning in organizing actions. A reinforcement learning agent that has to optimize for a body that needs to drink, eat and socialize in order to function would totally go to grab a beer instead of playing a losing game. The needs of the agent are formative. Human needs are a source of much of our special skills. If we put artificial agents in similar situations, and they will be able to do similar things to humans.
I can design a system that is a Star Trek style Communicator that is also a computer more powerful than today's multi-million dollar Supercomputers, fits in your pocket, and will run on battery power for days*.
* Circa 1970
Today's "youth" have no perspective. It's you know your technology history you DO NOT doubt such claims. Do you have any idea how far we have progressed in less than half a human lifetime? Do you not get that the advancement of technology has far been non-linear to the point of being almost exponential?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The Butlerian Jihad in the original Dune books was a reaction to the majority of humans delegating most of their thinking to machines, which allowed the humans that controlled the machines to control them. Every year, this seems more prophetic.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"If it cannot be emulated in silicon it either means biological entities have a soul ..."
Why would it mean, if biology doesn't rely on processes that are comparable to systems that run software on silicon, that it relies on a soul.
1) AlphaGo exploded on the scene by beating world class Go players much faster and much earlier than expected. Exponentially is a loaded word. e^0.0000001 is an exponential growth rate. So let's not quibble about how exponential the growth rate is.
Particularly as we can't really measure intelligence. But "exponential" has a meaning, and it means a steady rate of doubling.
2) AlphaGo is a general purpose learning tool. Just listen to the lectures and articles penned by the DeepMind team.
No, it's a narrow AI. In the end, it's simply doing math. It's not "thinking" in any sense of the term. It's just able to hold many more probabilities in its memory than a human, and play them out much faster.
3) Alphago has displayed human-like intelligence, as claimed by the Go professionals it has played. They have said that AlphaGo plays like a human player.
That is what you call anthropomorphizing. The human players are simply projecting onto the machine.
4) If you take the fourth assumption literally, AI's intelligence is going to expand infinitely. Talking about infinity in human terms is unreasonable. Yes, AI's intelligence will expand.
"Infinite" simply means there's no limit. We don't know whether or not there's a limit to intelligence, but since the universe is finite, there would seem to be a limit to the things one could know. Infinite intelligence is our notion of God. What are the odds that infinite intelligence is also mythological?
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
As my old friend Edsger Dijkstra once said "The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim."