3 ms·
I never claimed AI was boring or run of the mill, just that it's not in my current interest. It's when I hear Hawking make claims like this, I call ignorance.
by mastrsushi 8y ago
I never claimed AI was boring or run of the mill, just that it's not in my current interest. It's when I hear Hawking make claims like this, I call ignorance.
"Computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence, and exceed it,' he said. 'Success in creating effective AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization. Or the worst. We just don't know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by it and side-lined, or conceivably destroyed by it.”
I feel like I'm in a high school stoner circle, yeeesh!
- danielbarla 8y agoSo, Hawking's preposition is that AI can surpass human intelligence. Is this the part you're disagreeing with? It's one thing to disagree, and it's another to call it ignorant. I for one agree that it can / will surpass human intelligence, it's just a question of when.
- johnmoberg 8y agoUnless natural disaster and/or war resets humanity, it seems inevitable. One only needs to concede that there is (probably) nothing special about the biological nature of the brain.
- danielbarla 8y agoThat's my reasoning as well, regarding the biological part. On the one hand, it seems to be an incredibly energy-efficient solution, but has several detractors as well (in a lighthearted fashion: lack of scalability and high-bandwidth networking, several billion years of legacy code, etc). On the other hand, it's unclear whether computers will continue to get faster in the fashion that they are today for long enough. If not, then huge efficiency improvements would be necessary on the software side, though those do seem to be happening as well.
- mastrsushi 8y agoI think it's completely possible AI can surpass our intelligence. Whether it's outside of our awareness or control, not likely.