MIT AGI: Boston Dynamics [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Since the invective lacks suevidence, we can assume it is based upon resentment and/or jealousy, i.e., “how dare their unweaponized, prototype tech be light-years ahead of our own tech! They’re unprincipled!”
Also, I don't think your remark is a fair representation of the parent comment.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Since this is part of an MIT lecture series on AGI, I think the GP is sort-of justified in also asking where that part is.
The reason? Otherwise why build it? Yes, there are cases where AGI as subhuman-level intelligence would have utility, but the remaining cases are far more numerous and have far more utility.
But why do we want to replace ourselves? Do we just want the machines to do everything for us? Take care of us like we're pets?
I for one hope they can fortify my deep solipsism with more detail, my own personal paradise Matrix. Or maybe they can just take care of me while I waste away on drugs, ensuring no negative externalities.
>Otherwise why build it?
Because it would be better to send robots into dangerous situations that it is to send human beings.
Once there's a way to train a general intelligence it's likely hard to contain the improvement - that's why the goal alignment problem is important. Even the current human architecture running at a billion operations per second instead of its current 100 or so would be a problem.
Human general intelligence is constrained by things like power consumption available via eating or needing a head that can fit out of a birth canal - AGI constraints are a lot less limiting and AGI can improve faster.
To put it into perspective if you can run the human architecture on an AGI at a billion operations per second it's like compressing a historical human civilization of learning into a couple hours.
Maybe for some reason this learning process will be slow or maybe there's some reason why it can't scale up quickly, but based on the learning speed in narrow areas that seems unlikely.
There's also the fact that natural selection which is a relatively brute force sexual selection mechanism still results in general problem solving brains being everywhere - it doesn't seem like something particularly rare.
Maybe a single human, but can you run an entire world civilization and it's environment (basically Earth) in a sped up manner? Because one super fast human-level intelligence is still constrained in a way that all of civilization is not. What is one human sped up a billion times? Is that 1 billion humans? We already have several of those units operating around the clock. And those units have access to the world's resources, whereas one sped-up mind will not, unless it can gain control of the world.
You may not need that much access to the world to learn/infer a lot about it [1] and if a superintelligent AI needed access to more in order to achieve its goal it'd probably be able to get it.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...
Though many approaches to “exactly-human intelligence” would just result in humans that happen to be robots, and we probably don’t want that, especially if the point is to make them do all our work for us.
I don’t know how to refer specifically to the alternative, though—an intelligence that can solve “human-hard” problems, without needing anything like sentience or self-determined goals/desires that would push it toward wanting things orthogonal to its designed purpose. Human-adjacent AGI? Human-competitive Tool AI?
It would be interesting to hear him speak about the pros and cons of different body plans. Are three or six legged robots useful, compared to four legged ones? What about multi-armed humanoid robots?
See: T=46min
- mentions military application without further comment, then dwells on elder care
- 21:05 robotics platform like "the android of robotics"
- 38:50 struggling with safety
- 48:00 "Im sure we will use learning before too long" Im surprised they arent using a lot of machine learning here.
The simplest and most practical use of ML is in CV. I'd be surprised if they weren't doing some of that.
So for now they actually do not let the robots operate in physical contact with humans. The closest they’ve come to testing the robots is working with a human to lift a stretcher.
See: T=37:50
Is this true of humans as well, or is it something unique to robots with their hard shells and hydraulics?
In other words, would freezing be a safe fallback strategy for a soft robot?
You also have "dynamic stable" systems. They're systems that only remain stable if they're under control, which means that the software can never abort, as that can cause a disaster. A good example is a plane autopilot, or a car autopilot. If the software encounters a critical error, shutting down probably results in more damage than just giving (hopefully slightly) invalid output, in some cases while switching to an extended emergency stop process (like in a car) or attempting to proceed normally despite failures in the control system (planes). Systems are expected to simply do the best they can when they fail.
There's a special kind of dynamic stable systems, which are systems that once stopped, can't be restarted at all, ever, and therefore there simply is no "good state" at all, and you can't even go through a lengthy shutdown process and restart. Essentially systems that self-destruct when the software decides to abort. Rockets, some types of reactors fall under this category, quite a few chemical robots, as does of course any living being.
Of course all interesting systems are dynamic stable. Anything that has a balance, moves faster than a certain function of it's weight, anything that has active components independent of the control (like any reactor), anything that builds up momentum (like a crane, or most moving platforms), factory lines, ...
As a rule dynamic stable systems are much harder to control, as at every moment you must have a plan ready to get to a safe state, instead of just taking into account what you want to achieve.
Humans are dynamic stable systems. Inside a human there are many layers of control, none of which can be safely turned off, some of which are so critical that if they just fail for a few seconds the human dies. Also, humans tend to stand up, looking through pubmed you can easily find just how badly a human body can be damaged by simply collapsing on the spot. A human body, however, cannot deal with extended loss of control even when safely lying down.
Most of the control functions in the human body don't actually happen in the brain, and happen within the body proper ... In some cases it's a neural circuit directly attached to muscle tissue (famously the heart has a big one, but almost every muscle and many glands have something), sometimes it's portions of the neural system that can work independently of the rest, where the control is circuits in points where nerves meet (lungs, the womb are examples. A human body can give birth successfully decapitated, probably even without a spinal cord, and a human with a severed vagus nerve will keep breathing for quite a while, although not indefinitely), some of it is neural circuits connected to glands that work through chemical messages (the hypofyse, adrenal glands). Beyond that there's many more layers. The spinal cord. The cortex and finally the neocortex (which itself is subdivided in nearly 60 parts that are more-or-less separate)
Many human reflexes are pretty simple heuristics.
Let them play with other baby robots and human trainers and they will learn. Same as animal babies.
Dogs are quite dangerous, but they learn how to not hurt other creatures.
If you say "at least as good as a human" then it's challenging. (by which I mean it's an ethics problem. Uber has ... ethical issues, but Tesla is much better already, and so far I'd say Google seems to have it covered)
If you say "perfectly safe, I don't care about humans" then it's impossible.
> So for now they actually do not let the robots operate in physical contact with humans. The closest they’ve come to testing the robots is working with a human to lift a stretcher.
This is an example of the "absolute safety" standard. By that standard, if you were fair, you wouldn't let humans near each other. You certainly wouldn't let 2 humans lift a stretcher and run with it, and yet we do that all the time, live on public television.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPbdnafO93c
That's reality, not an abstract standard. That's what humans find acceptable behavior done to other humans that likely have a fractured bone : throwing them onto a field from half a meter high (and on occassion, onto concrete or the metal of an ambulance. With the broken bone first if you're truly out of luck. Ouch). As long as it's not done on purpose ... it's fine.
Over 1000 humans are killed yearly in the US just because other humans can't wait to sober up before driving. That's how much humans really care about safety. How much humans imagine/pretend they care about safety ...
If you follow his Robots series right through to the end of the Foundation series, the theme is how robots R. Giskard and R. Daneel "evolved" to not follow a strict and rigid interpretation of the 3 laws, instead taking actions that are of long-term benefit to mankind even if that might mean short-term harm to a few individuals.
You also have the Solarians, who'd simply ended up programming their robots to only recognize Solarians as human; so if you're an Earthling or Auroran a robot will have no qualms about murdering you. That was pointing out the biggest flaw to the whole concept of the 3 laws: even in the Robots/Foundation universe where they have been implemented with great deal of success, they're only as reliable as those who define them.
Hmm something doesn't sit right with me on this one. It's not just slides, it's videos too. It seems like they're apologizing for a mistake they might have made as opposed to intentionally downscaled the videos. Is it just a coincidence that the first time some of these videos are shown (not all) they happen to be extremely low res?
Great guest lecturers.