3 ms·
Wait, the whole argument hinges on assuming P != NP correct? Which isn’t something that is proven... so by following the author’s analogy, I think left with the
by asimpletune 7y ago
Wait, the whole argument hinges on assuming P != NP correct? Which isn’t something that is proven... so by following the author’s analogy, I think left with the conclusion that there is definitely a possibility that there are people exponentially smarter than others.
The other assumption was based on the determinism of the machine. As far as I understand, the brain is not a deterministic computer. We don’t really understand how our brains work at all, but they definitely don’t work in any way shape or form to how we understand a computer to work, this leaving even more possibility for interpretation to an opposite conclusion.
Lastly, what about all the evidence of people who actually did accomplish exponentially more work than others? We have the benefit of the hindsight to check that real quick and, yup, I’d say 100% there are people who have done it. Elon, Jobs, Gates, etc...
However, I’d agree with the author if they argued that we can’t predict who will be exponentially smarter. To do that, we would have to simulate the future or have an algorithm that can tell us, which obviously presents some contradictions.
I think we all just sort have to wait and see.
- asimpletune 7y agoNot to mention that smart people usually do amazing things by just changing the rules and making the problem easier to solve (you can only make a horse go so fast or pull so much, but you can invent an automobile or train) This whole analogy I realized after thinking about it is just computer science baby babble. Fundamentally it comes down to not formally specifying the problem (not saying I can, I can’t and neither can anyone else that I’m aware of) People always want to cling to quantitative interpretations of qualitative problems, and then declare QED, despite the whole thing being predicated off a false premise to begin with (like the thing we’re discussing is an appropriate candidate for an algorithmic interpretation to begin with). And without a formal specification of the problem, we have no formal way of checking our solution.
- trishankkarthik 7y agoFirstly, have you read ImaCake[1]? Secondly, if you're so smart, why didn't you write this essay, and refute it yourself? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- taberiand 7y agoI take slight issue with your examples. Do "Elon, Jobs, Gates" really come to mind first when talking "exponential" genius and accomplishment over say Einstein, Gauss, Neumann etc?
- asimpletune 7y agoThat’s fair, and I didn’t mean the list to be comprehensive. I guess when I chose those people I was just thinking about examples of one person achieving huge scale, but yeah on second thought you’re totally right. I’d be honored to admit I was wrong for not mentioning them :)
- microcolonel 7y agoCompetence is, for the most part, distributed normally, but productivity looks something more like pareto.