3 ms·

Watch the video that I linked. Your questions/issues are answered or obviated by it.

by crusso 8y ago

short_sells_poo 8y ago
Can you please point out where? Because I did watch this video in the past and I know about Sam Harris and his views. He addresses _none_ of my points and provides _zero_ proof for any of your claims. He makes interesting claims and proposes interesting outcomes given assumptions that are far from certain. Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched and supported claims and assumptions from where we are now, to artificial general intelligence? A runaway positive-feedback loop of continuously (self-)improving machines is a _possibility_ but by no means an inevitability. We don't even know what consciousness really is, what gives rise to it. To make a claim that it is inevitable that we'll be able to create general intelligence seems like an absurdly bold claim to make. Again, I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems hubris to me to declare that it is certain, when we only have vague and nebulous predictions to work on.
- crusso 8y ago
  "Can you please point out where?" Your issues/questions indicate that you either aren't familiar with the talk or you disagree with the basic assumptions that he outlines. Questions like "Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched" are nonsensical given that we obviously aren't there yet. If you disagree with his stated assumptions (which I'm not just going to repeat here since the video is short), then we can just agree to disagree because I find them compelling.
  - short_sells_poo 8y ago
    Ah but now we are talking about opinions and assumptions. You wrote that the linked talk will answer or obviate my questions, which it didn't. It made some fairly wild predictions with little actual evidence. The predictions are interesting for sure, but I like to see more robust support for such ambitious claims.
    - crusso 8y ago
      You're just being argumentative. There's nothing you can predict that isn't built upon some assumptions. "When I flip this light switch, the lights will go on like they have the last 10,000 times I did so." Is a prediction built upon assumptions that power is still running, that the light bulb hasn't burnt out, and that physics will continue working the way it has up to this point. You need to consider the strength of the assumptions in order to evaluate the predictions. If you consider those assumptions to not be fairly solid... whatever. But just handwaving that because "we are talking about opinions and assumptions" somehow gives your disbelief credibility worth exploring is a non-starter.

Watch the video that I linked. Your questions/issues are answered or obviated by it.

by crusso 8y ago

Watch the video that I linked. Your questions/issues are answered or obviated by it.

Can you please point out where? Because I did watch this video in the past and I know about Sam Harris and his views. He addresses _none_ of my points and provides _zero_ proof for any of your claims. He makes interesting claims and proposes interesting outcomes given assumptions that are far from certain. Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched and supported claims and assumptions from where we are now, to artificial general intelligence? A runaway positive-feedback loop of continuously (self-)improving machines is a _possibility_ but by no means an inevitability. We don't even know what consciousness really is, what gives rise to it. To make a claim that it is inevitable that we'll be able to create general intelligence seems like an absurdly bold claim to make. Again, I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems hubris to me to declare that it is certain, when we only have vague and nebulous predictions to work on.

crusso 8y ago
"Can you please point out where?" Your issues/questions indicate that you either aren't familiar with the talk or you disagree with the basic assumptions that he outlines. Questions like "Can you provide any study that lays out a path with well researched" are nonsensical given that we obviously aren't there yet. If you disagree with his stated assumptions (which I'm not just going to repeat here since the video is short), then we can just agree to disagree because I find them compelling.
- short_sells_poo 8y ago
  Ah but now we are talking about opinions and assumptions. You wrote that the linked talk will answer or obviate my questions, which it didn't. It made some fairly wild predictions with little actual evidence. The predictions are interesting for sure, but I like to see more robust support for such ambitious claims.
  - crusso 8y ago
    You're just being argumentative. There's nothing you can predict that isn't built upon some assumptions. "When I flip this light switch, the lights will go on like they have the last 10,000 times I did so." Is a prediction built upon assumptions that power is still running, that the light bulb hasn't burnt out, and that physics will continue working the way it has up to this point. You need to consider the strength of the assumptions in order to evaluate the predictions. If you consider those assumptions to not be fairly solid... whatever. But just handwaving that because "we are talking about opinions and assumptions" somehow gives your disbelief credibility worth exploring is a non-starter.