|
Yeah, where I sit, papers from two years ago are considered ancient, and the advances if the last few years means I can train things on my laptop in for hours that likely would have been a week of gpu time in 2014. This means we can experiment more easily, and try things out with fewer resources, which in turn leads to faster innovation. So AI isn't stuck. It's also mostly working on well defined, targeted problems. Life, on the other hand, works towards a very ill-defined objective function (survive, collectively) over millions of years; all of the emergent behavior we're astonished by is maybe just side effects of working on that objective. (This is a crass viewpoint, but let's stick with it for the sake of argument.) We mostly aren't working on such objective functions, partly because it's hard to compare results, partly because there aren't clear milestones for success (indeed the goal posts for AGI shift as far as AI advances) and partly because skynet. In fact, we are consistently surprised by the AI we already have. It finds ways to exploit our fitness functions constantly, and fine tricks and heuristics to gain a couple points on the final score constantly. Click bait comes to mind: we want to surface good content, use clicks as a proxy for quality, and get what we see for instead of what we wanted. Which somehow takes us directly to president trump... (Sure your kid can find a cool way to get out of a chair, but call me when she inadvertantly threatens the basis of the US democracy in the process. And then we can talk about the pressing need for AGI.) |
Agreed. Plus think about all the data and processing power that went into evolution. And some folks think because a system beat a human at Go that we're nearer solving life's age old question, that is, the essence of intelligence.