5 ms·
why?
by user24 16y ago
why?
- jerf 16y agoThe profit potential of owning the first AI is hard to put an upper bound on.
- nostrademons 16y agoUntil the machines become self-aware, realize they're being ripped off, and either launch nuclear missiles at us or imprison us in gooey energy pods while they implant false hallucinations into our consciousness. ;-)
- user24 16y agodefine AI.
- endtime 16y agoThere are a few things wrong with this sentiment: * The risk of interacting with the first AGI is even harder to put an upper bound on. You might destroy the human race. * Statistical NLP and ML might be useful "addons" to an AGI but they're unlikely to lead to its creation on their own. * Google has a lot of really smart engineers and computer scientists, but AGI is neither an engineering nor a CS problem.
- jerf 16y ago"AI is hard" is part of the reason why the profit potential is hard to bound; if it were easy it would also be very easy to assess the profit potential: It would hardly be profitable at all, it would simply be the economic baseline. And I don't see how "it's dangerous" contradicts "it's hard to bound the profit" either.
- endtime 16y agoI don't think I said anywhere that Google shouldn't do it because it's hard. I said they shouldn't do it because it's dangerous and because it's not the kind of problem they know how to solve.