[ExI] alpha zero

Thu Dec 7 22:30:46 UTC 2017

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Dylan Distasio <interzone at gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> >> 
>> If you can teach yourself to be the best in the world at some complex
>> task without "thought" then what's the point of "thought"? Who needs it?
>>
>
> > 
> It's not needed as I'm defining it (human level intelligence combined with
> consciousness
>

I'm far far more interested in intelligence than consciousness
,
If the machine isn't conscious that's it's problem not mine. But what makes
you think the machine isn't conscious? 

 whatever that is, but I think we're relatively good at identifying it

I can directly detect consciousness only in myself, I have a hypothesis
that others of my species are conscious too, but not all the time, not when
they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead.  My hypothesis is other
people are only conscious when they behave intelligently. Teaching
 yourself to be the best in the world at Chess and GO and 
Shogi
 is pretty intelligent.

> 
> I will give you a real world example of why these networks don't think,
> and why thought is important.  I'm going to shift into image recognition
> for the example.    It is very easy to game these machine learning systems
> with an adversarial attack that shifts pixel information that is
> essentially  undetectable to the human eye but that will cause the system
> to misidentify a turtle as a gun (for example).
>

Humans sometimes 
misidentify
 images too, and unlike people computers are getting better at image
recognition every day.

> > 
> The point of thought is to be able to generalize and make decisions with
> sometimes very limited information based on experience and imagination.
> This system is capable of nothing like that.
>

The system had no information to work with at all except for the basic
rules of Chess, and that is as little information as you can get, and it
wan't a specialized Chess program  as Deepblue was 20 years ago, the same
program could generalize enough to teach itself to be the best in the word
at Go and
and Shogi
 too.

> 
It is still very brittle outside of the goal it has been trained on.  It
would need to be retrained for each new goal,

No, it trained itself, that's what so impressive. 

> 
 Deep learning neural nets appear to bear little resemblance to how
biological nervous systems actually work.

As far as Chess

Go and Shogi are concerned it works far better than 
biological nervous systems
.

> 
> I would still argue that this is very far from strong AI.

Teaching yourself to become best in the world in less than a day sure
doesn't seem very far from strong AI to me.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20171207/387b82ea/attachment.html>