3 ms·
As someone with a reasonable foundation in both the state of AI and the state of neuroscience research, I honestly have no idea why people give Kurzweil any att
by jknoepfler 9y ago
As someone with a reasonable foundation in both the state of AI and the state of neuroscience research, I honestly have no idea why people give Kurzweil any attention. Just about nothing I have ever read from him is even remotely plausible, yet I've met intelligent people (usually mathematically oriented people) who think the detail-sparse garbage is gospel. It's a little infuriating, honestly. The details, which are always manifestly absent from his work, are literally the only things that do matter when evaluating their credibility.
- Balgair 9y agoYeah, I've noticed that too. It always seems to be the math and physics-majors that just swish off biology as 'trivial'. In physics, you can assume a cow is a 1 meter radius sphere of density 1. You can be fine with that approximation. In biology, you are very very interested in the exact number of cells in the lining of that cow's third stomach 5 minutes after it ate wheat. Approximations don't really work in such complex systems as a mammal.
- tim333 9y agoI think with some important ideas like AI improving, he's the most prominent publicist and so gets quoted.