5 ms·

Well, a survey of AI researchers in the 60's would have said we'd have AGI by now. Surveying researchers in a field is not a reliable method for determining tr

by panic 11y ago

Well, a survey of AI researchers in the 60's would have said we'd have AGI by now. Surveying researchers in a field is not a reliable method for determining truth.

mattmanser 11y ago
You should read Nick Bostrom's superintelligence and look into what AI can actually do today. I went from being incredulous like you to apprehensive like Musk/Gates/Hawkings.
Houshalter 11y ago
I'm not certain that's correct, only some people predicted AI within 50 years in the 60's. Presumably modern researchers have a lot more information by now so their predictions are likely to be more accurate. As we get closer in time to it, it will become more predictable and obvious. You can't really have expected people at the time of the very first computers to have predicted the date of AI accurately. Note the prediction has large error bars, with researchers predicting a 90% chance by the end of this century, but "only" a 50% chance within 25 years. Anyway what's the alternative prediction? If you don't take predictions from the experts, who do you ask for predictions? Lay people? Just make stuff up? It's the best we can do.
- panic 11y ago
  Anyway what's the alternative prediction? If you don't take predictions from the experts, who do you ask for predictions? Lay people? Just make stuff up? It's the best we can do. One way could be to come up with one or more plausible, step-by-step stories for how AGI will be developed, then model how long each step might take to happen. This would open things up to discussion and criticism instead of having to take the word of experts as gospel. It still wouldn't be scientific, but at least it'd be closer.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    There are far too many unknowns to even attempt that. No one even agrees what methods will lead to AGI, let alone how long it will take to make the necessary breakthroughs in those fields. This subject is entirely within the realm of opinion. I'm not arguing you should take the predictions as gospel. It's just an interesting and relevant datapoint. Maybe the only objective datapoint we have.
- xixixao 11y ago
  You should read the Dartmouth Conference proposal :)

by panic 11y ago

Well, a survey of AI researchers in the 60's would have said we'd have AGI by now. Surveying researchers in a field is not a reliable method for determining truth.

mattmanser 11y ago

You should read Nick Bostrom's superintelligence and look into what AI can actually do today. I went from being incredulous like you to apprehensive like Musk/Gates/Hawkings.

Houshalter 11y ago

I'm not certain that's correct, only some people predicted AI within 50 years in the 60's. Presumably modern researchers have a lot more information by now so their predictions are likely to be more accurate. As we get closer in time to it, it will become more predictable and obvious. You can't really have expected people at the time of the very first computers to have predicted the date of AI accurately. Note the prediction has large error bars, with researchers predicting a 90% chance by the end of this century, but "only" a 50% chance within 25 years. Anyway what's the alternative prediction? If you don't take predictions from the experts, who do you ask for predictions? Lay people? Just make stuff up? It's the best we can do.

panic 11y ago
Anyway what's the alternative prediction? If you don't take predictions from the experts, who do you ask for predictions? Lay people? Just make stuff up? It's the best we can do. One way could be to come up with one or more plausible, step-by-step stories for how AGI will be developed, then model how long each step might take to happen. This would open things up to discussion and criticism instead of having to take the word of experts as gospel. It still wouldn't be scientific, but at least it'd be closer.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  There are far too many unknowns to even attempt that. No one even agrees what methods will lead to AGI, let alone how long it will take to make the necessary breakthroughs in those fields. This subject is entirely within the realm of opinion. I'm not arguing you should take the predictions as gospel. It's just an interesting and relevant datapoint. Maybe the only objective datapoint we have.
xixixao 11y ago
You should read the Dartmouth Conference proposal :)