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.

> 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.