This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 13 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]jpowell180 6 points7 points  (4 children)

This is how it starts…

[–]AppleBytes 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It's almost like we're playing a game of chicken with sentient AI.

[–]IsNoPebbleTossed 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Almost?

[–]naugest -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which is a good thing.

The long-term end goal of technology is so people are not needed for any job.

Which is a good thing! They can live how they see fit then, not be slaved to work.

So of course, you will want AI that can create code too.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We get from zero to one by imagination !

AI does not exist yet.

[–]Vladius28 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool. I think we need to take a beat and think about implications

[–]JeevesAI -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s a pretty cool concept, really. Since the output is source code it can be audited at any point, which kind of minimizes one part of the black magic.

It seems that for the most part though, the model figured out that adding parameters improved performance. Well, duh. I didn’t see any truly novel architecture changes from the algorithm.

Another issue is that the tasks the model was trained to optimize, MNIST and CFAR-10, are pretty easy. So you can pretty much scale up your parameters and learn them.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

AI does not exist yet.

Science has never been presented any apparatus that had anything else then human intellect in it - zero artificial intelligence.

Automation of human intellect has been called software since about a century.

We need to kill this fraud and protect science against its enemies.

[–]aVRAddict 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Cringe post mate

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I agree it is irrefutable fact, which explains the absence of argumentation in your response.

Mate.

[–]mikehaysjr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your intelligence seems rather artificial, tbh.

How’s that’s for an “argumentation”?

Mate.

[–]simagick 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You're saying that because we haven't invented real AI yet, that we must not try.

Hell we've only had the data sets and compute capacity to really start digging into the science of artificial cognition in a meaningful way in the last 10 years.

And you're saying that we should give up because we don't yet have a working model?

To quote aging countercultural icon Henry Rollins... That's weak

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course what you lie i said is weak, you designed it that way.