2 ms·

I'm just asking for a guess.

by Benjo 16y ago

possibilistic 16y ago
I'm a computational molecular biologist, and I don't understand the cell or the brain. Nobody does. What's holding us back? The proteome, interactome, connectome, etc. etc. You'll see biologically-inspired AI after we solve a MUCH simpler set of problems: cancer, aging, and viruses. I doubt you'll still be young when that happens. (Not that I don't hope for this to happen as soon as possible.) I wouldn't concern myself AI anyway. With the rate at which our machines are becoming more parallel and gaining in throughput, I might expect to see an accurate model of a single neuron in a few decades. Get over the Kurzweil fantasy and live each day as best as you can. If we don't get to live forever it isn't the end of the world. (And if you believe it is then maybe you should be working on this problem instead.)
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I think that Kurzweil has already answered arguments such as this. My rendition of that argument would be that... <argument> Scientists who study these things are absolutely correct in saying that we won't achieve quick progress with walls they can see and the tools that they have. Yes, the thing is that we won't see notable progress in the experimental biological realm but rather we will first see super-quick progress from something like a very crude, biologically inspired AI that indeed doesn't require us to understand the brain but works well-enough at the exe-scale. From that, we'll have far more powerful tools to actually start to understand the brain. </argument> I'm not qualified to say whether Kurzweil's answer here is correct. However, I don't think anyone is going to be able to make final judgment until a "singularity" happens or until computing progress definitively hits a wall we can't go around. The living-forever question, of course, is a whole, other discussion. The world is changing very rapidly. Given this, any extrapolation thirty years into the future is fantasy. Things may be very much nicer, very much more unpleasant or in-between. My argument is for uncertainty, not certainty. The idea that things will remain about the same seems like at least as much of a "fantasy" as the idea that the singularity will come and solve all of our problems.

I'm just asking for a guess.

by Benjo 16y ago

I'm just asking for a guess.

I'm a computational molecular biologist, and I don't understand the cell or the brain. Nobody does. What's holding us back? The proteome, interactome, connectome, etc. etc. You'll see biologically-inspired AI after we solve a MUCH simpler set of problems: cancer, aging, and viruses. I doubt you'll still be young when that happens. (Not that I don't hope for this to happen as soon as possible.) I wouldn't concern myself AI anyway. With the rate at which our machines are becoming more parallel and gaining in throughput, I might expect to see an accurate model of a single neuron in a few decades. Get over the Kurzweil fantasy and live each day as best as you can. If we don't get to live forever it isn't the end of the world. (And if you believe it is then maybe you should be working on this problem instead.)

joe_the_user 16y ago
I think that Kurzweil has already answered arguments such as this. My rendition of that argument would be that... <argument> Scientists who study these things are absolutely correct in saying that we won't achieve quick progress with walls they can see and the tools that they have. Yes, the thing is that we won't see notable progress in the experimental biological realm but rather we will first see super-quick progress from something like a very crude, biologically inspired AI that indeed doesn't require us to understand the brain but works well-enough at the exe-scale. From that, we'll have far more powerful tools to actually start to understand the brain. </argument> I'm not qualified to say whether Kurzweil's answer here is correct. However, I don't think anyone is going to be able to make final judgment until a "singularity" happens or until computing progress definitively hits a wall we can't go around. The living-forever question, of course, is a whole, other discussion. The world is changing very rapidly. Given this, any extrapolation thirty years into the future is fantasy. Things may be very much nicer, very much more unpleasant or in-between. My argument is for uncertainty, not certainty. The idea that things will remain about the same seems like at least as much of a "fantasy" as the idea that the singularity will come and solve all of our problems.