klmadfejno

The objective was to make a machine that could beat anybody at chess. Nobody on the Alpha Zero team believes Alpha Zero is an example of general AI. Teaching a system to understand a complex system is a necessary subcomponent of general intelligence.

Of course. That's the whole point of society.

If a lookup table can predict human decisions with high accuracy given access to its senses and feelings, then either a human is just another can opener or intelligence isn't real.

> Not quite. You'd need to look into how people play chess. It has vastly more to do with present positioning and making high-quality evaluations of present board configuration.

That is what Alpha Zero does when you remove tree search

> A NN is just a system for remembering a dataset and interpolating a line between its points.

Interpolating a line between points == making inferences on new situations based on past experience.

> If you replace a tree search with a database of billions of examples, are you actually solving the problem you were asked to solve?

The NN still performs well on positions it hasn't see before. It's not a database. The fact that the NN learned from billions of examples is irrelevant. Age limits aside, a human could have billions of examples of experience as well.

> A NN is just a system for remembering a dataset and interpolating a line between its points.

So are human brains. That is the very nature of how decisions are made.

> Only if you thought the goal was literally to win the game; or to find the route to the bottom of the hill. That was never the challenge

So then why did you bring it up as an example other than to move goal posts yet again? I can build a bot to explore new areas too. Probably better than humans can. Any novel perspective that a human brings, is, by definition, learned elsewhere, just like a bot.

> Intelligence is in how you win, not that you have.

Sure, and being a dumbass is in how you convince yourself you're superior when you lose every game. There are many open challenges in AI. Making systems better at learning quickly and generalizing context is a very hard problem. But at the same time, intellectual tasks are being not only automated, but vastly improved by AI in many areas. Moving goalposts on what was clearly thought labor in the past is just handwaving philosophy to blind yourself from something real and actively happening. The DOTA bots don't adapt to unfamiliar strategies by their opponents, and yet, they're still good at DOTA.

We know every nuclear failure. We don't know every time a strong nuclear risk existed but by chance, didn't trigger. Nuclear power plants are probably much safer on average, but it only takes one corner cutting plant to cause a nuclear accident.

That said, I'm also pro-nuclear.

The people harmed by the externalities of your personal choices because you live in a society where some degree of cooperation with the larger community is required.

> They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.

> That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.

Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move?

Also, Alpha Zero, with its ability to do a tree search entirely removed, achieves an ELO score of greater than 3,000 in chess, which isn't even the intended design of the algorithm.

A rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums vs. global minimums. A child will too sometimes.

This doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean?

I wouldn't use this personally, but to me it's pretty clear that the use of 'quote-unquote' is meant to denote sarcasm more strongly than quotation marks.

> You sure about that?

Single dumb human posts singular dumb ai example to show that all ai are dumb and fails to recognize the irony.

> rescuing humans

Vague and undefined, mostly a hardware problem, not an intelligence problem

> detecting cancers and disease

AI is a strong tool for detecting many cancers, and in some areas of research, just using the same olfactory data as dogs: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

> shepherding

Again, not so much an intelligence problem, but a hardware problem. Nonetheless

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/09/stress-test-au...

> protecting family from threats

In terms of ability to recognize and classify a threat, AI is clearly superior here. Dogs have terrible false positive rates.

> Were such a car to exist, it is clear the dog would win in very very many environments (almost all). As would a mouse, let alone a dog.

This seems incredibly unlikely. AI vastly outperforms 99.99% of humans on various video games, and 100% on many others. I'll bet on a well trained ml model over a dog every time.

> That it may be possible to rig a human environment to be replete with so many symbols (road signs, etc.) that an incredibly dumb automated system can follow them is hardly here-nor-there.

We already have above average human performance with just normal road signs, and could also simply use digital information.

> Self-driving cars may work on highways and motorways; I don't see there being any in cities. Not for centuries.

Goalpost shifting

And yet computers continue to perform tasks that were talked about for years as something uniquely human / intelligence driven. This is a nice philosophical debate, but in practice I think it falls flat.

But... you would. If all elderly people dropped dead right now, deaths per year would plummet for decades.

Leave where? Ireland? Amazon might choose to leave Ireland and go to the Bahamas, and that sucks for Ireland, but Amazon's situation doesn't really change. The US can still send a tax bill to Amazon's door.

Ballpark yes, but that's likely a huge overestimate, as even normalized to age, its people with co-morbidities that have the lion's share of deaths.

That's only true if a random sample of the population dies. If we assume (and I'm making this up) that in the steady state, the elderly comprise 90% of deaths, then if a war kills only young people, you'll expect a substantial increase in proportional death rate.

Why do other countries need to sign the agreement? They don't really seem like they have any part in this process.

I use sublime 3 pretty frequently, and am aware of this feature, but haven't experienced a moment where this was useful, or at least, not more useful than just running find-replace (which is fantastic on sublime with its pattern matching and speed and what not btw). How do you use this effectively?

I was looking at that but saw so many reviews stating that the rear speaker connections didn't work well and got scared off. I got a sonos arc and speaker set instead.

My setup runs to a projector with no eARC support. I found this thing which splits a signal directly from source into two paths with eARC support. Haven't tried it yet, but optimistic that it'll work.

https://www.amazon.com/HDFury-HDF0160-Arcana/dp/B08DF7GRCB?r...

> (No, planetary migration won't keep GDP growth going any time soon. Humans could settle on the Moon or Mars but they're too far away to contribute much to our Earthly GDP. They'd be mostly isolated economies of their own.)

I don't really agree with your take on things but this one stuck out to me as particularly wrong. If there were suddenly another population of humans on another planet, there would, at a minimum, be a regular flow of digital goods, as well as physical shipments, largely one way earth -> mars.

> Traditional engines

That's the crux of it though isn't it? These are complaints about a specific approach, not generally of computers, and not even of the best demonstrated models.

I'm also not entirely sure this is the correct way to think about it. If the function to evaluate the accept-a-draw decision is separate from the next-move decision. Then if the accept-a-draw is refused, doing the poor pawn sacrifice is, without question, the best available move. My interpretation is that the accept-a-draw is made in a vacuum here.

Played the web app. Pretty fun but also pretty one dimensional. Congrats on releasing either way. That's my goal as well and I don't think I'm likely to reach it until I'm retired :(

- The optimal strategy pretty clearly seemed to be max out speed and one type of attack. Most battles can be one shot victories. I assume it wouldn't be that difficult to build up enough durability to survive multiple rounds of a battle, but it'd likely be a lot slower. Final boss was one shot on my first attempt.

- I only did physical attacks. There wasn't much room for strategy. Tackle if tackle would kill it; wild slashes if tackle wouldn't kill it; big slash if even that wouldn't work. There were some stat change attacks available but they didn't seem too interesting. Most of the time you just wanted to do enough damage to win quickly. Sand attack seemed somewhat useful once or twice. Because battles were so short, an enemy would need to be able to survive at least 3 tackles AND survive fewer than that with a debuff in order to make using any sort of buff or debuff worthwhile. Cuz tackle/tackle is basically the same outcome as sand attack/tackle. I'm not sure any fights lasted longer than 3 rounds for me.

- I had no obvious way to know if magic was more effective against certain enemies. But in any case, physical was more than enough, and thus, splitting any points between physical and magic attack was sort of a waste. I think there was a beastiery but I wasn't really interested enough to look through it

- The attack ammunition felt a little odd. Mainly in that I mostly just wanted more tackle ammo but as the game went on, mostly got variants that felt less useful. Reckless tackle in particular felt weirdly useless in how dangerous it was to yourself. I did feel like I wanted to conserve some ammo, but mostly for not wanting the annoyance of farming level 1 for tackles. If I had known the game capped out at warehouse 3 I probably would have finished it a lot sooner just blasting everything with big slash and calling it a day.

- I think it would be difficult to continue to add more meaningful content without adding more depth to the combat.

I found this question poorly worded, because you can only ask "What would the other assistant tell me to do". I assumed both would try to tell me to agree to the terms. Not what would they tell me to do if I asked them how to opt out.

> A human can understand the themes in a position and understand where they want the pieces to go

So can a computer though. This is an interesting edge case, but it seems to me that this particular bot mostly evaluated odds of winning by the pieces, not by the position. A more modern algorithm will actually use the positions on the board.

What would a human do if told "you're up by two rooks, do you want to allow a forced draw?" without being allowed to look at the board.

There's a line of can't/won't/shouldn't here though. The AI systems probably could drive in these conditions. Most of them utilize GPS to navigate. But they don't because that's a high risk activity. I'm not totally convinced that even now, the average accident rate of a self driving car wouldn't be lower in adverse conditions compared to a random driver- if the car were just told to do its best and let loose.

Not that I'm advocating this is a good idea.

I got some chain mail bikini girls but that's about it.

Why is that useful though? "It's like I'm really listening to a TV!". Isn't that what people try to avoid with expensive sound systems that offer surround sound?

> We can cross that bridge when, if, we come to it. At the moment, AI products are nowhere near as safe as human drivers in no-compromises realworld driving situations (ie a foggy/snowy/icy night, driver asleep, mountain highway etc).

I'm not entirely convinced this is true, even though it's commonly stated. People are terrible at driving in fog and snow and ice (and... asleep?). It's intuitive why a self driving car company would not want to release the cars to do this in extra dangerous situations while they're still improving the easier stuff, but we don't exactly have stats to say the cars would necessarily do worse.

Self driving is, in my opinion, ironically, a trolley problem. If enabled in mainstream usage, we'd probably see total deaths drop, but they'd be shifted to a more random set of people dying for stupider reasons.

Would you rather two drunk drivers and an overworked sleepy trucker die; or one guy who could drive safely but was instead driven into an overturned truck.