AI Plausibility Poll Wednesday, Aug 13 2008
AI 10:07 pm
[poll=3]
If the poll script is missing up (like it seems to be for me), then just put your probability and arguments into the comments.
Categories:
- aerospace (3)
- AI (200)
- animal rights (14)
- anthropics (7)
- art/music (2)
- articles (2)
- BCI (13)
- bioethics (10)
- biology (30)
- brain (14)
- chemistry (3)
- comics (5)
- cryonics (35)
- cybernetics (5)
- environmentalism (4)
- ethics (8)
- events (99)
- friendly ai (115)
- futurism (148)
- humor (18)
- images (61)
- intelligence (39)
- interviews (17)
- IQ (7)
- kurzweil (1)
- life extension (79)
- lifeboat (10)
- manufacturing (5)
- math (2)
- me (12)
- meta (62)
- nanotechnology (131)
- nuclear (20)
- philanthropy (13)
- philosophy (69)
- physics (12)
- policy (5)
- politics (12)
- random (78)
- rationality (13)
- religion (8)
- risks (145)
- robotics (50)
- science (32)
- SIAI (86)
- singularity (305)
- space (42)
- superintelligence (45)
- technology (124)
- transhumanism (249)
- treaties (2)
- uploading (8)
- videos (137)
- warfare (4)
- web 2.0 (12)
Monthly:
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (8)
- November 2011 (8)
- October 2011 (5)
- September 2011 (12)
- August 2011 (12)
- July 2011 (21)
- June 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (11)
- March 2011 (17)
- February 2011 (21)
- January 2011 (44)
- December 2010 (44)
- November 2010 (32)
- October 2010 (21)
- September 2010 (40)
- August 2010 (40)
- July 2010 (32)
- June 2010 (39)
- May 2010 (44)
- April 2010 (25)
- March 2010 (14)
- February 2010 (40)
- January 2010 (39)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (84)
- October 2009 (71)
- September 2009 (65)
- August 2009 (52)
- July 2009 (33)
- June 2009 (70)
- May 2009 (48)
- April 2009 (40)
- March 2009 (52)
- February 2009 (20)
- January 2009 (20)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (4)
- September 2008 (15)
- August 2008 (14)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (16)
- May 2008 (58)
- April 2008 (31)
- March 2008 (45)
- February 2008 (27)
- January 2008 (3)
- December 2007 (5)
- November 2007 (7)
- October 2007 (29)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (11)
- July 2007 (24)
- June 2007 (20)
- May 2007 (23)
- April 2007 (27)
- March 2007 (29)
- February 2007 (11)
- January 2007 (26)
- December 2006 (22)
- November 2006 (44)
- October 2006 (27)
- September 2006 (28)
- August 2006 (39)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (6)
- May 2006 (9)
- April 2006 (6)
- March 2006 (9)
- February 2006 (3)
- January 2006 (16)
RSS Feeds:
Technorati:
Author:
Over 95%.
We need two things – reverse engineer the low level design, and computation hardware.
The complexity of design is bounded by the amount of info in our DNA, which is on the order of tens of megabytes (1% coding DNA out of 6 gigabit of total DNA).
Hardware will be here in 10-20 years courtesy of Moore’s law.
Over 95%
Barring the possibility of a global police state under one government, and even then, human level AI will emerge.
If the private sector isn’t working on artificial intelligence than surely the military well. This is just too powerful of a technology to not be taken seriously by the world’s governments.
Of course there is documented evidence they are working on it as well as private interests, so I don’t see how it can not happen at this point. Unless there is a global catastrophe and most of the humans on planet earth, who are working on the problem, die then it is inevitable.
Over 95% that it’s possible, though it’s certainly much less that we’ll actually achieve it.
Over 95%
Because the poll does not give a timetable; it is very, very likely that A.I. will be achieved at some point in the future (how close we are to that goal is the hard part to estimate.)
If you concede that intelligence was created by natural forces; then it seems likely that we will be able to recreate it in some way.
Barring the natural (or unnatural) destruction of intelligent life on this planet; the creation of advanced A.I. seems just a matter of when.
IMO, it doesn’t make sense to ask what the chances are that this will eventually be possible.
Either it’s possible or it’s not.
Since there are ample rational reasons to assume that it is, and none to assume that it’s not, let’s just say 100%.
Over 95% — you didn’t specify a time limit.
Between 75 and 95%, I think. I leave that little 5% just in case there is something we don’t know.
Now if you’d specified a time-limit of, say, before the year 2100, then I’d be going for 25-50%. By 2050, I’d say 5-25%.
Between 5% and 25%. do we even want human intelligence, why not something completely different. A super T-Rex mind in charge would be a cool change.
50% – We will almost certainly achieve it if we don’t destroy ourselves first.
Well, 100% of course. The question is a bit too fuzzy, imho.
Thinking that something is possible doesn’t mean we have to achieve it. Also, given no time limit at all, just take some monkeys and visual studio and off we go (ok, we might need some hardware monkeys too).
And if “any type of human-level AI” includes partial implementations such as chess playing programs, then the goal is reached already (although one might argue that they don’t understand chess properly and merely optimise an abstract target function, but that doesn’t change the fact that they play chess better than humans).
That said, I’d put my probability that we create a full human level AI in the next 50 years to about 5-25%. Any time after that during the existence of human civilisation: 50%.
Over 95%
possible: over 95%
will be created: between 50% and 75%
actually make that between 75% and 95%
Polls about if and when we can expect a human-level artificial intelligence to arrive have been popping up in geek publications on slow news days since at least 1979. That’s when Robotics Age, the intelligent machines journal polled the world’s top robotics and a.i. experts with the following question:
“How long will it be before an affordable robot exists that with only verbal programming can be set up to do any assembly line job that a human can do?”
The average answer of the experts in 1979, nearly 30 years ago, was 11 years.
Now here is Accelerating Future’s a.i. poll and their simple little polling bot’s code has crashed. So they must ask readers to vote in the comments section. Can’t think of anything more appropriate for an poll about human-level a.i., the technology that also never seems to work.
Over 95%. As I see it, we have an obvious working prototype – the human brain. Clearly the laws of physics allow for human-level cognition. After that, everything else is “just” engineering.
I’m a bit of an AI obsessive geek, so I find polls like these really exciting (and predict we’re 95% there, but those 5% may take decades to achieve).
On a secondary, shameless note, I work at pollsb.com – an online polling service. You can try to use our poll widget for your poll if you wish.
If it works, it certainly ain’t shameless self-promotion!
That being said; I give H.sapiens-fungible AGI the 95% as well; though I have to say that I put that at the 2100 mark, and reduce the probability by 10% for each decade. Ironically, this means I’m giving a “hard” probability prediction date of sometime around 2040-2050. (As probabilities like this are partially cumulative).
I am absolutely certain we will have human level intelligent devices in my (reasonably plausible) lifetime. That means, in the next 40 or so years.
However even in the run-up to that point where we have a machine that duplicates all functions of average humans, we will suffer a complete disruption of our societies, our ethics, our most cherished beliefs and most importantly, our economies.
More poignant questions …
- how long before we will have a single AI device that is smarter than every single human of the lowest 50% mean IQ test score;
- when will AI displace more than 50% of all current jobs;
- when will AI be smart enough to *start* tinker with its own hardware, sourcecode;
- how differentiated types of totally different AI will we see before one of them becomes superhuman;
- will AI’s be created analogous to human minds or will researchers be more succesful developing AI that is abstract and non-human in architecture;
- will black maketeers, hackers and garage researchers have a strong effect on development of AI;
- how much effect will early warners like Ben or Elizer have on big budget AI research
- how many years will government legislation push back or advance the development of any typical type of AI
- when will there be consumer-available and affordable types of AI
- will totally there be totally blindsiding unexpected technological leaps other than Nano, Cogno, Bio and AI before we have true AI;
- how much hysteria will the emergence of early AI evoke in the general public;
- will societies treat AI as slaves, will AI mind if we do;
- if we make an AI of which it can be argued it can suffer, is selfaware and it demands civil rights will we honor its wishes;
- will we have fully intelligent uplifted animals before AI;
0%. Things will develop in some other direction, completely unexpected by you or me.
It’s not meant to be a poll about whether we’ll actually achieve AI or not, just whether it’s possible in principle. This is an important philosophical question.
Also, lol@anyone who said 0% or 100%.
Well, seeing that we cant get a simple script to count our votes, I really dont know :D
Hey, *I* said 100%
Why lol@anyone?
Because you can never be absolutely certain or uncertain about anything. There is always the possibility that you’re a brain in a vat and everything is staged, for instance. The only 100% true beliefs are tautological. And nothing is strictly impossible because you’d require an infinite number of trials to establish that.
“Ever” is a long time, I’d definitively say over 95%
Ah, you’re talking philosophy then. I don’t care much for that, myself.
Well, if we assume we already accomplished that goal, then we can, from a logical standpoint that is, assume a 100% probability that we will achieve it in the future.
That “100% is impossible because it might all be just in our heads”-argument is invalid, because it renders all discussion about reality pointless. Except in some theoretical philosophical contexts, it is perfectly legit (IMHO) to assume the world we see is real, and normalise our probabilities according to that.
Same goes for 0%, when it is logically impossible, we can talk about 0% probabilities. Once you start arguing, that logic in itself might be a wrong construct in our heads, then it is pointless to talk about probabilities in the first place.
Ever be possible?
Greater than 95%.
Human level AGI within 20 years?
Less than 10%
Конечно, на самом-то деле так оно и есть. :)
> 99%.