3 ms·
> Rodney Brooks (approx.): No, human ingenuity is actually responsible for progress in AI. We can’t just solve problems by throwing more compute at them. I fin
by anonytrary 8y ago
> Rodney Brooks (approx.): No, human ingenuity is actually responsible for progress in AI. We can’t just solve problems by throwing more compute at them.
I find this amusing considering nature just kept throwing more time at the universe until humans emerged. That said, I don't think Brooks is wrong. I can't recall where in the lectures this is, but I remember Feynman going on a rant about how poorly designed the human eye was. Human ingenuity really is an essential piece of the puzzle, seeing as Nature, in and of itself, isn't very smart.
- nilskidoo 8y agoWe may not understand its logic, but that doesn't mean it's logic is beneath us. On a bad day for nature, it makes a two-headed cow. On a bad day for mankind's tech advancements, we get the means to wipe out all life on this planet. Seems mighty fucking counter-intuitive.
- wolfgang42 8y agoOn a bad day for nature, it actually does kill off a significant chunk of all life on the planet: https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-event-the-earths-first-mass-extinction.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-e...
- taneq 8y agoYou kind of have to add an implicit "unless we want to use a computer the size of a planet and wait two billion years for the answer".
- abstractcontrol 8y agoYour comment about the human eye made me curious about its design flaws. While I could not find anything about what Feynman said, this might be of interest to some. https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/ https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design...