4 ms·

But my reasoning is spelt out clearly in my first post- I find the opening statement of the article to be a frivolous hyperbole in a world facing cancer, globa

But my reasoning is spelt out clearly in my first post- I find the opening statement of the article to be a frivolous hyperbole in a world facing cancer, global warming, hunger, poverty, antibiotic resistant infections....

drdeca 11y ago
The part they might have been trying to understand is how that specifically fits in with the complaint about the line being unscientific. I certainly do disagree with the line you quoted and complained of ("complained" here used in a neutral sense). I don't think humanity will ever invent true AGI. (I think attempting it may be worthwhile, but I don't think it is likely to succeed, and I certainly don't think it is of prime importance). The thing that might not be understood is why you (seem to?) think it is inappropriate (not forbidden, just not-worth-your-time or whatever judgement you made of it) for an article to have both opinion based non-empirical statements, as well as other more technical statements, or something like that. I'm not sure that the article purported to be a scientific article in the sense that you meant, nor do I think that the submitter claimed it was. I don't at all mean to suggest that you are incorrect for disliking the first sentence enough to not read the rest of the article. I think that's reasonable. However, I don't really understand the complaint being on the basis of it conflicting with the blog post being a "scientific article". I agree that its good for there to be things which just document things without including things like the first sentence there, but I think its also good for there to be things which also do have things like the first sentence there. I can think of a number of other complaints about that sentence that make a fair bit of sense to me, but I don't /really/ understand the reasoning behind yours. If this was like, a news article or something, I would agree more I think, but seeing as it seems to just be someone's personal blog, I don't see why I would expect[1] an entirely detached and objective view from it, instead of a mix of personal viewpoints along with statements of fact (though, I would expect/hope that the viewpoints and the facts not be conflated). [1]expect in the approval sense, not in the prediction sense. sorry this post is long I'm often not good with being concise
- mankash666 11y ago
  It boils down to personal preference I suppose. I'm used to the tech press mixing opinions & facts, and probably unreasonably expect actual practitioners/inventots of tech to omit opinions, especially omniscient, overarching, grand opinions.

drdeca 11y ago

The part they might have been trying to understand is how that specifically fits in with the complaint about the line being unscientific. I certainly do disagree with the line you quoted and complained of ("complained" here used in a neutral sense). I don't think humanity will ever invent true AGI. (I think attempting it may be worthwhile, but I don't think it is likely to succeed, and I certainly don't think it is of prime importance). The thing that might not be understood is why you (seem to?) think it is inappropriate (not forbidden, just not-worth-your-time or whatever judgement you made of it) for an article to have both opinion based non-empirical statements, as well as other more technical statements, or something like that. I'm not sure that the article purported to be a scientific article in the sense that you meant, nor do I think that the submitter claimed it was. I don't at all mean to suggest that you are incorrect for disliking the first sentence enough to not read the rest of the article. I think that's reasonable. However, I don't really understand the complaint being on the basis of it conflicting with the blog post being a "scientific article". I agree that its good for there to be things which just document things without including things like the first sentence there, but I think its also good for there to be things which also do have things like the first sentence there. I can think of a number of other complaints about that sentence that make a fair bit of sense to me, but I don't /really/ understand the reasoning behind yours. If this was like, a news article or something, I would agree more I think, but seeing as it seems to just be someone's personal blog, I don't see why I would expect[1] an entirely detached and objective view from it, instead of a mix of personal viewpoints along with statements of fact (though, I would expect/hope that the viewpoints and the facts not be conflated). [1]expect in the approval sense, not in the prediction sense. sorry this post is long I'm often not good with being concise

mankash666 11y ago
It boils down to personal preference I suppose. I'm used to the tech press mixing opinions & facts, and probably unreasonably expect actual practitioners/inventots of tech to omit opinions, especially omniscient, overarching, grand opinions.