3 ms·
Quote: "An overwhelming amount of evidence points to this simple fact: a single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than
by Rallerbabs 8y ago
Quote: "An overwhelming amount of evidence points to this simple fact: a single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than itself. This is a purely empirical statement: out of billions of human brains that have come and gone, none has done so. Clearly, the intelligence of a single human, over a single lifetime, cannot design intelligence, or else, over billions of trials, it would have already occurred."
What an incredibly inadequate argument. Obviously, none could have done so in the past. Because the required resources simply weren't available. Breakthroughs are being made right here in this era, with Jeff Hawkins' being one of the latest.
This guy reminds me of Richard Smalley, who, against better judgment, attempted to make irrational arguments against molecular nanotechnology, as envisioned by Drexler.
Also, he can't be a software pioneer. He's too damn young.
- Sharlin 8y agoWow. That argument can be applied to any invention or creation. There are bad arguments and then there are ridiculous ones.
- antt 8y agoHe is merely attacking the lone inventor myth. While it is good for putting names in the history books it is completely inadequate for actually deciding who invented something. Mathematics has the rule of thumb that anything named after someone was not discovered by them. It should equally well apply to all fields of human endeavour. Until we get rid of that myth we will never figure out how creativity actually works.
- baddox 8y agoYes. The argument is logically equivalent to "nothing can ever happen for the first time."
- Upvoter33 8y agoThis quote stuck out for me too, and is clearly, as you say, "inadequate". Also, no invention comes from a single brain; the biggest software systems we build, for example, are designed by many, many people. No one person can even understand something as complex as some of our large-scale software systems. And yet, we build them and they work.
- the_af 8y agoIn the full article, the author addresses this. He argues a human's intelligence is more externalized in society than physically located within his/her brain.
- ocfx 8y agoGlad I'm not the only one who had a problem with that reasoning.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> An overwhelming amount of evidence points to this simple fact: a single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than itself. I mean, that's probably true. That's why we have big corporations with multi-billion dollar R&D budgets for large projects. A single human brain probably couldn't code all of Gmail, let alone an AI.
- sullyj3 8y agoFor me, it's at least refreshing to see one that doesn't rely on the implicit hazy assumption that biological intelligence is magical.
- randyrand 8y agoIn a similar vain, it is impossible for a human to design something that is faster than itself at moving. This is why cars are limited to human running speed. /s
- wilg 8y agoWhile I agree with you, I'm not sure what youth has to do with being a pioneer or not.
- rrauenza 8y agoI suspect it has less to do with the age of the pioneer, but rather with the perception/opinion of what decade the pioneering happened.
- marcosdumay 8y agoSoftware pioneering happened at the late 50's to the early 70's. Does the guy look like he was an adult at the early 70's?
- wilg 8y agoOh, this is a specific definition I've never heard of. Is that common? Some quick Googling suggests that people use the term "pioneer" in relation to computer science in a broader sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_s... (spans 500 BC to 2011 AD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Pioneer_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Pioneer_Award (awarded each year)