3 ms·

If you're going to present your judgement on it you could explain why you think that

• progressive_dad 11y ago
  Sticking with the explosives analogy I'd liken it more to rocket science than gunpowder. Sure, you might understand and be able to somewhat predictably control the output of the reactants but in order to use them effectively you are going to introduce an infrastructure for which there will be a tolerance for failure. This broad generalization elides any discussion of the stakes or acceptable tolerances under which we might use these algorithms that simulate life to produce an effect. Further you might plausibly posit that a structuralist approach to biological systems, information, and habitat is not only sisyphean but antithetical to an embodied understanding of our world and ourselves.
• nefitty 11y ago
  I doubt the ability of intelligence researchers to ultimately retain predictive capability of a self-correcting algorithm. If it is sufficiently powerful enough to be considered able to learn, the complexity embodied in even simple biological creatures shows the inherent inscrutable nature of complex systems. I was stunned that Valiant seems to really believe a complex learning-capable system would continue to remain under human control. Though I am optimistic that we will continue increasing our capacity to control these types of systems (the Human Genome Project blew everyone away with their rapid advancements, so did Google's recent Go successes, etc), I am not so quick to jump to the conclusion that we will remain dominant of them in perpetuity.