Prosaic AI - Revision history

Issa at 19:10, 27 February 2021

2021-02-27T19:10:59Z

Issa at 06:25, 3 June 2020

2020-06-03T06:25:51Z

Issa at 09:38, 23 February 2020

2020-02-23T09:38:31Z

Issa: Created page with "what are the possibilities for prosaic AI? i.e. if prosaic AI happened, then what are some possible reasons for why this happened? some ideas: * optimizing hard enough produc..."

2020-02-23T09:29:12Z

Created page with "what are the possibilities for prosaic AI? i.e. if prosaic AI happened, then what are some possible reasons for why this happened? some ideas: * optimizing hard enough produc..."

New page

what are the possibilities for prosaic AI? i.e. if prosaic AI happened, then what are some possible reasons for why this happened? some ideas:

* optimizing hard enough produced a [[mesa-optimizer]] inside the neural network (or whatever)
* all of the things we humans do with our general intelligence turns out to be possible to do without actually "understanding" anything. i.e. in the same way that [[AlphaGo]] can play Go "without understanding" what it is doing, and how [[GPT-2]] can write an essay "without understanding" its meaning, it turns out that all of the things humans do (including AI research) is possible without such understanding.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 27 February 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:

	What is the relationship between prosaic AI and [[secret sauce for intelligence]]? One interpretation is that the prosaic AI hypothesis is saying that ''humans'' won't make any conceptual breakthrough prior to building AGI (which still allows for an AI to rapidly improve its capabilities in a discontinuous way by discovering a conceptual breakthrough on its own), while the "no secret sauce" hypothesis is saying that there won't be a conceptual breakthrough at all.		What is the relationship between prosaic AI and [[secret sauce for intelligence]]? One interpretation is that the prosaic AI hypothesis is saying that ''humans'' won't make any conceptual breakthrough prior to building AGI (which still allows for an AI to rapidly improve its capabilities in a discontinuous way by discovering a conceptual breakthrough on its own), while the "no secret sauce" hypothesis is saying that there won't be a conceptual breakthrough at all.
		+
		+	[[Category:AI safety]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, 3 June 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	* optimizing hard enough produced a [[mesa-optimizer]] inside the neural network (or whatever) the story here is something like: either (1) there turns out to be nothing "deep" about intelligence at all, and just increasing the model size/compute of existing ML systems (or straightforward tweaks to them) somehow produces an AI that fully "understands" things and can do everything humans can; (2) there is some [[simple core algorithm]] and this can be found by using lots of compute (or whatever).		* optimizing hard enough produced a [[mesa-optimizer]] inside the neural network (or whatever) the story here is something like: either (1) there turns out to be nothing "deep" about intelligence at all, and just increasing the model size/compute of existing ML systems (or straightforward tweaks to them) somehow produces an AI that fully "understands" things and can do everything humans can; (2) there is some [[simple core algorithm]] and this can be found by using lots of compute (or whatever).
	* all of the things we humans do with our general intelligence turns out to be possible to do without actually "understanding" anything. i.e. in the same way that [[AlphaGo]] can play Go "without understanding" what it is doing, and how [[GPT-2]] can write an essay "without understanding" its meaning, it turns out that all of the things humans do (including AI research) is possible without such understanding.		* all of the things we humans do with our general intelligence turns out to be possible to do without actually "understanding" anything. i.e. in the same way that [[AlphaGo]] can play Go "without understanding" what it is doing, and how [[GPT-2]] can write an essay "without understanding" its meaning, it turns out that all of the things humans do (including AI research) is possible without such understanding.
		+
		+	What is the relationship between prosaic AI and [[secret sauce for intelligence]]? One interpretation is that the prosaic AI hypothesis is saying that ''humans'' won't make any conceptual breakthrough prior to building AGI (which still allows for an AI to rapidly improve its capabilities in a discontinuous way by discovering a conceptual breakthrough on its own), while the "no secret sauce" hypothesis is saying that there won't be a conceptual breakthrough at all.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 what are the possibilities for prosaic AI? i.e. if prosaic AI happened, then what are some possible reasons for why this happened? some ideas:
-* optimizing hard enough produced a [[mesa-optimizer]] inside the neural network (or whatever)
+* optimizing hard enough produced a [[mesa-optimizer]] inside the neural network (or whatever) the story here is something like: either (1) there turns out to be nothing "deep" about intelligence at all, and just increasing the model size/compute of existing ML systems (or straightforward tweaks to them) somehow produces an AI that fully "understands" things and can do everything humans can; (2) there is some [[simple core algorithm]] and this can be found by using lots of compute (or whatever).
 * all of the things we humans do with our general intelligence turns out to be possible to do without actually "understanding" anything. i.e. in the same way that [[AlphaGo]] can play Go "without understanding" what it is doing, and how [[GPT-2]] can write an essay "without understanding" its meaning, it turns out that all of the things humans do (including AI research) is possible without such understanding.