4 ms·

Yes, that's precisely my point. I've read the rest of what you have to say on this, and it is precisely the kind of mysticism that bothers me. There are no me

Yes, that's precisely my point. I've read the rest of what you have to say on this, and it is precisely the kind of mysticism that bothers me. There are no means of disproving it, it reduces to dogma in the end, but it's philosophically disingenuous to assert that because computers and people feel like different things in some cases, they must be, and then to argue backwards from there; it's question-begging in the original sense.

yters 8y ago
Seems pretty plausible with a max entropy + Bayesian hypothesis selection. And it has empirical implications: https://www.am-nat.org/site/halting-oracles-as-intelligent-agents/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/halting-oracles-as-intelligent-a... If I'm right, then all AI only companies will be beaten by a AI+human company, so we can make market predictions and propose research directions based on the hypothesis. Doesn't seem entirely without technical/financial merit. I make a note of the economic implications at the bottom of the following proof: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ Why do you say it a form of mysticism?
vlovich123 8y ago
I mean it's clearly obvious that today, "AI" on computers != human. Unsupervised learning is making leaps & bounds. Even supervised learning isn't able to solve all problems better than humans even if it can do so on a staggeringly large amount of problems. I don't think anyone is positing that that's true forever and all time. It seems reasonable to bet on AI at some point becoming sophisticated enough to outperform AI+human. I think it'll happen shortly after the point where AI can identify a new problem (or class of problems) by itself that it hasn't been taught about & then build new tools to help itself tackle that problem. After that it's the singularity because that process repeats ad infinitum. The only value-add of humans after that is if our creativity is somehow better/different than & can explore problems in ways the AI can't (& even that feels like a very short-lived advantage unless there's some crucial physical/mathematical impossibility standing in the way).

yters 8y ago

Seems pretty plausible with a max entropy + Bayesian hypothesis selection. And it has empirical implications: https://www.am-nat.org/site/halting-oracles-as-intelligent-agents/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/halting-oracles-as-intelligent-a... If I'm right, then all AI only companies will be beaten by a AI+human company, so we can make market predictions and propose research directions based on the hypothesis. Doesn't seem entirely without technical/financial merit. I make a note of the economic implications at the bottom of the following proof: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ Why do you say it a form of mysticism?

vlovich123 8y ago

I mean it's clearly obvious that today, "AI" on computers != human. Unsupervised learning is making leaps & bounds. Even supervised learning isn't able to solve all problems better than humans even if it can do so on a staggeringly large amount of problems. I don't think anyone is positing that that's true forever and all time. It seems reasonable to bet on AI at some point becoming sophisticated enough to outperform AI+human. I think it'll happen shortly after the point where AI can identify a new problem (or class of problems) by itself that it hasn't been taught about & then build new tools to help itself tackle that problem. After that it's the singularity because that process repeats ad infinitum. The only value-add of humans after that is if our creativity is somehow better/different than & can explore problems in ways the AI can't (& even that feels like a very short-lived advantage unless there's some crucial physical/mathematical impossibility standing in the way).