# that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized



## VicNicSor

— The COS project was posting big losses for Eurisko and Drake was about to terminate the program.
— So the machine [COS] killed Drake out of self-defense?
— Self-preservation. It's the primary instinct of all sentient beings.
— Mulder, that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized.
The X-Files, TV series

= The level at which the mashine is able to kill a human out of self-preservation is decades away from* being realized*
...right?
If so, what does 'being realized' mean here?
Thanks.


----------



## Sepia

realize - to become part of the actual real world. 
You would have found that in the online Webster's, by the way.


----------



## AutumnOwl

It will take artificial intelligence decades to reach that level (to have the intelligence of self-preservation).


----------



## VicNicSor

The original phrase doesn't make sense to me then

... that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from *our time / now  *-- that's what I'd expect.

Because "being realized" and "that level of" belong to one time -- to a remote future.


----------



## JamesM

"The dream of 100% pollution-free energy is decades away from being realized."

We have the dream _now.  _It won't be a reality for several decades.

We know that the "away" means "away from today".


----------



## VicNicSor

Still don't understand



JamesM said:


> "The dream of 100% pollution-free energy is decades away from being realized."


Yes, this is clear -- "the dream's away from being realized".



JamesM said:


> We know that the "away" means "away from today".


But. E.g. in your example it's *today *(the dream) is away from *tomorrow *(the dream being realized)


----------



## VicNicSor

In the same way, in the OP, "that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized" -- looks like "tomorrow is away from tomorrow", because both "that level" and "being realized" are "tomorrow".


----------



## Linkway

In this case, and generally, if no specific time reference point is stated explicitly or clearly indicated by context, it is assumed to be "the present".

"The present" might be this moment, today, this week, month, year, decade, century, etc depending on context.

eg:

I have not eaten for three days.

Driverless cars will be commonplace in ten years.

Mulder, that level of artificial intelligence is decades away (from now) from being realized.

In this specific example, note the use of present tense "is decades away".

*Contrast *with:

Even when we achieve 100% pollution-free energy production, lossless energy storage (eg batteries for electric cars) *will still be* decades away.


----------



## Myridon

"That level" does not have a time. It's an idea.  As an idea, it exists now.


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> The original phrase doesn't make sense to me then
> 
> ... that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from *our time / now *-- that's what I'd expect.


-> that level of artificial intelligence will only be realized decades away from *our time / now*.


----------



## yakor

It means that many decades would pass before it is done. He said it from the end.


----------



## Wordsmyth

To expand on Myridon's post #9 ...

"That level of artificial intelligence" is an idea that exists now. The idea will exist tomorrow, and next year, and in 10 years time, ...

Let's say that in 2080, the idea becomes a reality (it is realised): that level of AI will then actually exist. 

2080 is decades away from now (say 2015). And 2015 is decades away from 2080. "Away from" has the sense of "separated from": it can be viewed either forwards or backwards in time.

The sentence could have been "The realization of that level of artificial intelligence will be decades away _(from now)._" [2080 is decades away from 2015.]

But it was actually "That level of artificial intelligence is _(now)_ decades away from being realized _(in the future)._" [2015 is decades away from 2080.] 
(I guess that's what yakor meant by "He said it from the end.")

Ws


----------



## VicNicSor

Linkway said:


> In this specific example, note the use of present tense "is decades away".
> *Contrast *with:
> Even when we achieve 100% pollution-free energy production, lossless energy storage (eg batteries for electric cars) *will still be* decades away.


I think whether it's the present or future tense doesn't matter so much. We could just as well say:
*Now that we've achieved* 100% pollution-free energy production, lossless energy storage *is still *decades away.


Wordsmyth said:


> The sentence could have been "The realization of that level of artificial intelligence will be decades away _(from now)._" [2080 is decades away from 2015.]
> 
> But it was actually "That level of artificial intelligence is _(now)_ decades away from being realized _(in the future)._" [2015 is decades away from 2080.]


Note that in order to use "away from now" at the end, you had to put "being realized" ("the realization of") at the beginning of the sentence.
Ok, if we assume that "that level of AI" is "the idea, existing now, of that level of AI" -- then it could work.
But it still strange. Because on its own, "that level of AI" only implies a future. To me at least.

Thank you, everyone!


----------



## Wordsmyth

VikNikSor said:


> Ok, if we assume that "that level of AI" is "the idea, existing now, of that level of AI" -- then it could work.


We don't have to assume it, Vik. That sentence is a standard English construction that (viewed in the context of the whole statement) _does_ signify just that — and it _does_ work.



VikNikSor said:


> Because on its own, "that level of AI" only implies a future. To me at least.


 It's a present idea about a future reality.

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> But it still strange. Because on its own, "that level of AI" only implies a future. To me at least.


Perhaps that's the problem.  Even though a parameter may currently be changing with time, a specific level of, e.g., AI has no _intrinsic_ link to any specific time.  Just like a specific temperature doesn't.
The average temperature is rising very slowly but the melting of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> AI has no _intrinsic_ link to any specific time. Just like a specific temperature doesn't.


"AI" doesn't, but "that level of AI" does...


JulianStuart said:


> The average temperature is rising very slowly but the melting of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.


That's clear, but still I find it different from the OP. Because "the melting of the glaciers on the planet" clearly indicates the present...


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> "AI" doesn't, but "that level of AI" does...
> 
> That's clear, but still I find it different from the OP. Because "the melting of the glaciers on the planet" clearly indicates the present...


???You seem to be bringing in aspects that are not grammar-related. The structures are parallel.   Development of AI has reached a certain level now, just like the melting has progressed to a specific extent. The "level" of AI is progress*ing* just like the "melt*ing*" is in progress.  Both will reach some particular state decades from now = that point in time is decades away.


----------



## bennymix

Vik, Wordsmyth has explained it well, in my opinion.   The realization (becoming actual, real) is several decades away (i.e. in the future from) the present.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> ???You seem to be bringing in aspects that are not grammar-related. The structures are parallel.   Development of AI has reached a certain level now, just like the melting has progressed to a specific extent. The "level" of AI is progress*ing* just like the "melt*ing*" is in progress.  Both will reach some particular state decades from now = that point in time is decades away.


Sorry, I don't find them parallel. The OP says what it says: "that level of AI", which implies the level the progress of AI will have reached in the future. Not the level at which AI *is now*, as in the "melting" example.
It's as if your example was something like:
*the complete melting and disappearing *of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.



bennymix said:


> Vik, Wordsmyth has explained it well, in my opinion.   The realization (becoming actual, real) is several decades away (i.e. in the future from) the present.


I seem to not be going to understand the idea, but I'll just remember this pattern is used.


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> Sorry, I don't find them parallel. The OP says what it says: "that level of AI", which implies the level the progress of AI will have reached in the future. Not the level at which AI *is now*, as in the "melting" example.
> It's as if your example was something like:
> *the complete melting and disappearing *of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.
> 
> 
> I seem to not be going to understand the idea, but I'll just remember this pattern is used.


Talk about picky 
The example with the glaciers was referring to the melting being complete as the parallel to the AI reaching a certain level.  When a glacier has melted it is gone.  It is a process and the completion is the sense intended in my example - re-read #15, please:

The average temperature is rising very slowly but *the melting* of the glaciers on the planet is *only decades away from completion.*


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> the melting being complete as the parallel to the AI reaching a certain level


"the melting being complete" is the melting being complete:
Looking at the original phrase:
the melting of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.

Now, "AI reaching a certain level", is "AI reaching a certain level"
Looking at the original phrase again:
that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized.

So these two phrases are not parallel. Because the pink 'completion' corresponds to the gray 'being realized' (which should've been pink too). (Not sure I'm clear enough here though)


----------



## JulianStuart

> Talk about picky
> The example with the glaciers was referring to the melting being complete as the parallel to the AI reaching a certain level.  When a glacier has melted it is gone.  It is a process and the completion is the sense intended in my example - re-read #15, please.





VikNikSor said:


> "the melting being complete" is the melting being complete:
> Looking at the original phrase:
> the melting of the glaciers on the planet is only decades away from completion.
> 
> Now, "AI reaching a certain level", is "AI reaching a certain level"
> Looking at the original phrase again:
> that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized.
> 
> So these two phrases are not parallel. Because the pink 'completion' corresponds to the gray 'being realized' (which should've been pink too). (Not sure I'm clear enough here though)
> ay.


Sorry Vik, you are neither correct nor clear.
Future event 1: (completion of the) melting of the glaciers.
Future event 2: (realization of) a certain level of AI.
Both events are decades away


----------



## JamesM

I'll give it one more try and then I'm out. 

The melting of the glaciers is a progression towards a particular state: the state where there are no more glaciers.
The advancement of AI is a progression towards a particular state: the state where artificial intelligence includes self-awareness and self-preservation.

You may be right when you say:



> I seem to not be going to understand the idea...


----------



## JulianStuart

Thank you James


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Future event 2: (realization of) a certain level of AI.


But I see the OP as: "(realization of) is decades away from a certain level of AI"


JamesM said:


> The advancement of AI is a progression towards a particular state: the level at which the machine's intelligence includes self-awareness and self-preservation.


I understand what the OP is supposed to mean, but I don't actually see this idea in the OP.


JamesM said:


> You may be right when you say:


Well, actually it was sarcasm, I meant by this phrase that I find the original phrase *inaccurate *and I seem to be going to think so. I have a right to it even if I'm just mistaken. After all, I have no problems with other examples provided in this thread.

Thank you all !


----------



## JamesM

VikNikSoir said:
			
		

> But I see the OP as: "(realization of) is decades away from a certain level of AI".



This is the heart of the misunderstanding (or difference of opinion).  What do you think "being realized" means in the OP?

The realization = the certain level of AI

Think of "being realized" as "being achieved".

"Mulder, that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being _achieved."_


----------



## JulianStuart

To see the link to the word (as noted in #2) "... decades away from becoming a reality"


----------



## VicNicSor

JamesM said:


> This is the heart of the misunderstanding (or difference of opinion).  What do you think "being realized" means in the OP?
> 
> The realization = the certain level of AI
> 
> Think of "being realized" as "being achieved".
> 
> "Mulder, that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being _achieved."_


The funniest in it is that all the way through this thread I've been thinking of "being achieved". And before you edited your post I checked up a dictionary, where I picked up two meanings:
achieve (something desired or anticipated); fulfil 
it is only now that she is beginning to realize her potential 

give actual or physical form to
the stage designs have been beautifully realized
I thought you'd say it's the latter ("give actual or physical form to") and I was going to admit I was wrong, because it makes more sense to me in the OP. 
But I think Julian in #27 and Sepia in #2 meant the latter.


----------



## Edinburgher

VikNikSor said:


> But I see the OP as: "(realization of) is decades away from a certain level of AI"


 That's an understanding that doesn't make sense.  Realization of WHAT is decades away from a certain level of AI?  The only thing being realized (or not) *is* "that level of AI".


> I understand what the OP is supposed to mean, but I don't actually see this idea in the OP.


 I think the original text is not well formulated, and neither is James's parallel example in #5, even though the intended meanings of both are clear.

The OP text is: "that level of artificial intelligence is decades away from being realized."
Normally you would interpret this as _X is decades away from Y_, i.e. X and Y are separated by decades.

But that doesn't make sense here, because, as James pointed out in #5, "away from" implicitly means "away from now", and so Y="now", despite "being realized" looking like the target of "from".
That's where the rot sets in in the original.  If "being realized" takes on the role of Y, then it is X that must take over the role of "now".
Trying to present "that level of AI" as being essentially a dream that we have now, just sounds like an excuse for poor writing.

I would have wanted it to say either _"The realization of that level of AI is (still) decades away from now"_, where the "from now" can be omitted because we know "away" means "away from now",
or else "_We are (still) decades away from realizing that level of AI._


----------



## VicNicSor

Though, on the other hand, they two look very similar.

I'd thought of "achieve" as "We've achieved some marvellous results with this new drug"

cross-posted with Edinburgher


----------



## JamesM

> Trying to present "that level of AI" as being essentially a dream that we have now, just sounds like an excuse for poor writing.



I think that's exactly what Scully is saying.  She is saying "Mulder, it is impossible that the machine murdered this man to preserve itself _because_ that level of AI is just something you find in science fiction right now.  It will be decades before such a level of AI becomes a reality."


----------



## Edinburgher

JamesM said:


> I think that's exactly what Scully is saying.  She is saying "Mulder, it is impossible that the machine murdered this man to preserve itself _because_ that level of AI is just something you find in science fiction right now.  It will be decades before such a level of AI becomes a reality."


 That is indeed what she means.  No doubt about it.  What I meant is that technically/linguistically the sentence is clumsily constructed.
She could have said "That level of AI is decades away" and ended the sentence there, with both "from now" and "the realization of" being implicit.  When you start to read or hear that sentence, you automatically place the part before "away" into the future (the future is decades away form now). If you then tack "from being realized" on the end, your comprehension engine starts to overheat.  Suddenly not only do we have an explicit "from" reference, but worse, it's in the future, so you have to un-think "from now" and reposition the beginning of the sentence, which you thought was in the future, back to the present.  It's awful!


----------



## VicNicSor

Well, Edinburgher, I've accepted the sentence

• She never realized her ambition of becoming a professional singer. 
• We try to help all students realize their full potential

The ambition/potential exist now, but have yet to be realized. 
"That level of" = (the *idea*) of that level -- does make sense.


----------



## bennymix

Edinburger,
I appreciate your analysis and have a sense of why Vik says "inaccurate".    What you both ignore
is that "away" works in both directions, and in time or space.

Toronto is 500 km away from Montreal.
Drive from Toronto east and 500 km away from there, is Montreal.

Toronto is 5 hrs away from Montreal.
Your arrival in Montreal is 5 hrs away from now, the time you're leaving Toronto.

To put it simply, 'distance' only is involved.  Direction does not matter.  In the OP, the 
'realization' (actualization) is of course, later, but that doesn't matter and isn't being talked about.  'Distance' in time is what 'away' implicates.





Edinburgher said:


> That is indeed what she means.  No doubt about it.  What I meant is that technically/linguistically the sentence is clumsily constructed.
> She could have said "That level of AI is decades away" and ended the sentence there, with both "from now" and "the realization of" being implicit.  When you start to read or hear that sentence, you automatically place the part before "away" into the future (the future is decades away form now). If you then tack "from being realized" on the end, your comprehension engine starts to overheat.  Suddenly not only do we have an explicit "from" reference, but worse, it's in the future, so you have to un-think "from now" and reposition the beginning of the sentence, which you thought was in the future, back to the present.  It's awful!


----------



## JamesM

Edinburgher said:


> That is indeed what she means.  No doubt about it.  What I meant is that technically/linguistically the sentence is clumsily constructed.
> She could have said "That level of AI is decades away" and ended the sentence there, with both "from now" and "the realization of" being implicit.  When you start to read or hear that sentence, you automatically place the part before "away" into the future (the future is decades away form now). If you then tack "from being realized" on the end, your comprehension engine starts to overheat.  Suddenly not only do we have an explicit "from" reference, but worse, it's in the future, so you have to un-think "from now" and reposition the beginning of the sentence, which you thought was in the future, back to the present.  It's awful!



I don't have that reaction at all.  It's a fairly common construction:

Putting Defense Back Into U.S. Defense Policy


> NDU's 1997 _Strategic Assessment _concurs that China's military modernization is slow and that it is decades away from being a major threat:


Is Fusion The Way Of The Future?


> Fusion power has taken a beating in the last few decades. Once considered the best candidate for clean, abundant energy and an alternative to fossil fuel and coal, a succession of failed experiments led many to conclude that it was a pipe dream - or at least, still many decades away from being realized.


The space elevator: Extreme science fiction that’s still a long way from science fact


> While the space elevator is still decades away from being a reality, a lot of really smart people are working to make it happen.


National Academy: Geoengineering No Substitute for Carbon Cuts


> Despite the emergence of the field into popular science in recent years, the National Research Council found that carbon sequestration technology is still decades away from being effective.


One Of These Things Just Doesn't Belong Here...


> Artificial intelligence is still decades away from being able to program value judgments into computers, so it had to be some mathematically quantifiable metrics on which the ad-bot made the choice to include those particular books in this particular ad.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> I don't have that reaction at all. It's a fairly common construction:


----------



## Wordsmyth

Edinburgher said:


> so you have to un-think "from now" and reposition the beginning of the sentence, which you thought was in the future, back to the present. It's awful!


 But I never did think it was in the future. "That level of artificial intelligence", as JS said back in post #15, has no _intrinsic_ link to any specific time. It's a level: if it's already been achieved, it's real; if it hasn't, it's a concept.

Reading one word further, I saw "That level of artificial intelligence _is_ ...", so then I knew straight away that the sentence was about the _present_ status of that level of AI (decades away from being realized). In fact I didn't even do that analysis when I read it, because I tend to read sentences semantically; also there was no grammatical error to cause me to hesitate.

But honestly, Edi, when you first read the sentence in the OP, did you immediately find it problematic (or more to the point, would you have if there hadn't been 28 previous posts discussing it)? Or did you just arrive at the conclusion that it's awful because Vik had a problem which led you to analyse the syntax?

Ws


----------



## Edinburgher

bennymix said:


> What you both ignore
> is that "away" works in both directions, and in time or space.


 That's not the case.  I have no problem with "away" being omnidirectional and equally applicable to time as to space.
The problem is that the structure, though straightforward to understand, does not lend itself to a similarly straightforward grammatical analysis.

But I crumble under the weight of James's supporting evidence.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Edinburgher said:


> The problem is that the structure, though straightforward to understand, does not lend itself to a similarly straightforward grammatical analysis.


OK, that covers my last question as well.

Ws


----------



## Edinburgher

Wordsmyth said:


> But I never did think it was in the future.


 I find that hard to believe. 





> Reading one word further, I saw "That level of artificial intelligence _is_ ...", so then I knew straight away that the sentence was about the _present_ status


 I read two words further. "Decades away" sure ticked the "future" box for me.


> Or did you just arrive at the conclusion that it's awful because Vik had a problem which led you to analyse the syntax?


 Guilty as charged.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Edinburgher said:


> I find that hard to believe.


Honest, guv, swelp me. Because I see "that level" as a present concept, not yet realised. I guess you see it only as a future reality.

I'm beginning to think that this has more to do with philosophy than either grammar or semantics.

Ws


----------



## Edinburgher

Wordsmyth said:


> I see "that level" as a present concept, not yet realised. I guess you see it only as a future reality.


  I see it as neither, but more as a neutral measure, notwithstanding that levels are something you attain, not realise.
Philosophy?  You may have a point.


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> "The dream of 100% pollution-free energy is decades away from being realized."
> 
> We have the dream _now.  _It won't be a reality for several decades.
> 
> We know that the "away" means "away from today".



At the beginning of the thread, I had a dream that we could reach the level of understanding where this common structure was clear to all.  It seems that dream is decades away from being realized.


----------



## siares

This thread should be marked as dangerous in the dictionary - I too originally had no problem with its logic and now I do. I think it started when I started reading 'that level of' in the sense of 'that kind of'.
Do these sound fine?
That kind of dream is decades away from being realised.
That kind of technology is decades away from being realised.


----------



## bennymix

I doubt the dream is 'decades away';   it's present! 



JulianStuart said:


> At the beginning of the thread, I had a dream that we could reach the level of understanding where this common structure was clear to all.  It seems that dream is decades away from being realized.


----------



## JulianStuart

bennymix said:


> I doubt the dream is 'decades away';   it's present!


Just read to the end of the sentence - an unusual request, it might seem based on some of the comments above, but humour me
The _realization_ is decades away, the dream itself is present, but fading.


----------



## JamesM

I agree with Julian.  "Donald Trump's dream of becoming president is a year away from being realized, if all goes as he wishes."

This doesn't say his dream is a year away. It says that the realization of that dream is a year away.


----------



## JamesM

siares said:


> Do these sound fine?
> That kind of dream is decades away from being realised.
> That kind of technology is decades away from being realised.



Yes, those both sound fine to me.


----------



## siares

Thank you JamesM.
How does it sound rephrased in active?
In decades, we will have realised this level/kind of AI.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, that sounds fine to me, too.

Well... "realized" becomes ambiguous there.  Do you mean "realized" as in "achieved/brought to reality" or as in "conceived/become aware of"?   I think it's not as clear in active voice because the subject is now "we".

For example, you could say "If we don't take action now to impact climate change, by the end of the century we will have realized our mistake."


----------



## siares

Thank you.
I meant bring to reality. My 'logic problem' with the OP was not with time, but with bringing levels to reality.

E:. Yes, there is also achieve.  I don't like the sound of achieve 'the type of' (and I read the level of as 'the kind/type of')


----------



## JamesM

You could say, for example, "If this well produces oil we will have realized our dream of being rich" or "If our investments continue to grow at this rate we will realize our dream of retiring at 40."

It really depends on the context whether it is clear or not.


----------



## siares

I understand realising the dream, but it still sounds weird to my ear in this different context.

realize* the dream* (of being rich)
realize* the level* (of AI)

I realised one of my dreams, some of my potential etc.
I realised one of levels?

I can't think of anything which is commonly realised (in active) except potential, idea, dream, ambition. AI is ... technology?


----------



## JamesM

I agree.  In some contexts the active voice seems fine and in others it doesn't.


----------



## siares

Thank you James.
Everybody should post back decades from now to see whether Julian's dream of unity is fulfilled.


----------



## Edinburgher

Even if it were clear that it did not mean "become aware of", the active version sounds rather positive, confident that this realization will definitely happen, and we only have to wait a few decades.
The passive version feels a bit more negative, as though it could mean it may never happen, but if it does, it'll be at least decades away - not in our lifetime,  He might as well have said, exaggerating as one does, that it's a million years away.


----------



## siares

Edinburgher said:


> "become aware of"


Do you think that in OP it might mean that the level has not yet become conscious of itself?
(once it did, then it would develop self-preservation and start killing in self-defence)


----------



## Edinburgher

No.  Levels don't have consciousness.  The statement isn't about the machine acquiring consciousness, it's about the technology of AI developing to the level at which it might become possible for people to build such a machine.


----------

