3 ms·

Basically, humans historically are rather bad at predicting future technological advancement - even those people directly involved. The article gives the exampl

Basically, humans historically are rather bad at predicting future technological advancement - even those people directly involved. The article gives the examples of Wilbur Wright saying heavier-than-air flight was 50 years away in 1901 and Enrico Fermi saying that a self-sustaining nuclear reaction via Uranium was 90% likely to be impossible 3 years before building the first nuclear pile in Chicago. So AI researchers saying that AGI is 50 years away doesn't necessarily mean any more than "I don't personally know how to do this yet" - not "you've got 40 years before you have to start worrying". Oh, and the first sign pretty much everyone had of the Manhattan Project was Hiroshima.

simonh 9y ago
We’re just as bad at predicting in the other direction. General strong AI has been about 20 years away since the 1960s. Nanotechnological antibody robots were supposed to be coursing through our bloodstreams making us near immortal long before now.
- DuskStar 9y ago
  Oh, of course! The article itself puts some effort into repeatedly stating the fact that people are saying 50 years does not in any way imply it will actually be 2 years and it might well be 500.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    This is a useless claim though. There are an infinite number of things that could happen that would be very bad for Earth that could happen anytime between 2 to 1000 years from now. We're bad at forecasting ALL of them. We can't use this indeterminacy to prove we should be working on X when the same is applicable to another thing Y.
    - sago 9y ago
      But equally, because we aren't working on all of them, doesn't mean it isn't worth working on any. Also, be careful not to confuse uncertain duration with more general uncertainty. They are related, but not the same.
    - edanm 9y ago
      Well we can decide what seems more or less likely. I mean, yes, an asteroid could impact the earth and destroy all life on it. But we have some guesses as to the probability that that happens. Clearly, by itself, the world will most likely not kill off humanity, since it hasn't happened in the thousands/millions years we've been around. The one big thing that is changing is humanity itself and the technology we're making - that's the X factor, that's what statistically speaking has a chance of actually wiping us out. Many of the people concerned about AGI are also concerned about e.g. manufactured viruses and other forms of technology.
- narrator 9y ago
  How about the future of Space travel imagined by extrapolating trends just after we landed on the moon in 1969? Until SpaceX came along space tech was basically frozen in the past and still the Russian's ancient soyuez capsules are the only way to get astronauts to the ISS.

simonh 9y ago

We’re just as bad at predicting in the other direction. General strong AI has been about 20 years away since the 1960s. Nanotechnological antibody robots were supposed to be coursing through our bloodstreams making us near immortal long before now.

DuskStar 9y ago
Oh, of course! The article itself puts some effort into repeatedly stating the fact that people are saying 50 years does not in any way imply it will actually be 2 years and it might well be 500.
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  This is a useless claim though. There are an infinite number of things that could happen that would be very bad for Earth that could happen anytime between 2 to 1000 years from now. We're bad at forecasting ALL of them. We can't use this indeterminacy to prove we should be working on X when the same is applicable to another thing Y.
  - sago 9y ago
    But equally, because we aren't working on all of them, doesn't mean it isn't worth working on any. Also, be careful not to confuse uncertain duration with more general uncertainty. They are related, but not the same.
  - edanm 9y ago
    Well we can decide what seems more or less likely. I mean, yes, an asteroid could impact the earth and destroy all life on it. But we have some guesses as to the probability that that happens. Clearly, by itself, the world will most likely not kill off humanity, since it hasn't happened in the thousands/millions years we've been around. The one big thing that is changing is humanity itself and the technology we're making - that's the X factor, that's what statistically speaking has a chance of actually wiping us out. Many of the people concerned about AGI are also concerned about e.g. manufactured viruses and other forms of technology.
narrator 9y ago
How about the future of Space travel imagined by extrapolating trends just after we landed on the moon in 1969? Until SpaceX came along space tech was basically frozen in the past and still the Russian's ancient soyuez capsules are the only way to get astronauts to the ISS.