Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

But Google can read, injest, and search for information far faster than I can.

Stockfish players chess far better than I can.

AlphaGo plays Go far better than I can.

Random Sudoku bot built on top of minizinc / z3 / whatever SAT solver can solve NP-complete problems better than any human.

--------

Here's the thing: what is "strong AI" ?? As far as I can tell, we're already at superhuman AI in most intelligence tasks (collecting data, collating it together, analyzing it, etc. etc.).

Its called a computer. What if "superhuman AI" is just the stuff we have today at our fingertips? It wasnt very long ago when reading documents and organizing them was considered AI. But today, we call that Google.

View on HN

Stockfish and AlphaGo are also available for humans to use. A human using Stockfish will be just as good at chess as a strong AI using Stockfish, and likewise for any future improvements to chess engines that either humans or strong AIs develop.

There are no superhuman craftsman AI.

Something that could in one package:

- hold a conversation about what it is that needs to be done

- clean a room

- fix a sink

- make a chair or table out of wood

- dig a hole

We don't know how to make AI that will learn to play even simple game like montezuma's revenge in some reasonable play time like 30 min.

We are currently closer to months or years of gameplay required.

> We don't know how to make AI that will learn to play even simple game like montezuma's revenge in some reasonable play time like 30 min.

Explain to me why a Tool-assisted Speedrun doesn't count as "AI". Its certainly not a human who is playing that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFB0kuPx5mQ).

> Something that could in one package:

I'm not sure if that sort of thing is worth the investment.

But if we have "Fly the F35 airframe" (which is incredibly unstable), then we suddenly reach "only computers can fly this thing" levels. Just the assumption of super-human control systems is baked into modern products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyN-CRNrb3E

Our cell phones are largely manufactured by machines these days. A few tidbits here and there remain in human hands for cheapness... but a lot of today's stuff is basically an AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRu02F6AOmg

> Explain to me why a Tool-assisted Speedrun doesn't count as "AI". Its certainly not a human who is playing that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFB0kuPx5mQ).

Because TAS are made by human speedrunners, who go through the painstaking process of specifying inputs for each frame. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, TAS are basically the exact opposite of AI.

> I'm not sure if that sort of thing...

> But if we have "Fly the F35 airframe"...

> Our cell phones are largely manufactured by machines...

That's a red herring. There's plenty of evidence we can make very useful narrow AI in many fields, and nobody is arguing against that.

The point is, they are, well, narrow. What your parent is saying is that there's no evidence that the statistical techniques behind the current wave of AI are capable of anything else.

To paraphrase Norvig, it could well be that we're trying to get to the moon by climbing a tree, reporting steady progress all the way to the top of the tree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com