4 ms·
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that you are thinking in technological progress only through individual achievement. This is what technological ite
by oscargrouch 7y ago
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that you are thinking in technological progress only through individual achievement.
This is what technological iterations, through generations of human beings, give us all. Humans achieve super-human level of technological achievements because we iterate over what others have left for us.
Knowledge is like a stair, made from the hard work of many great human beings, and even for hard problems, with enough ammount of iterations, and with consecutive progress (without social deterioration) we can achieve anything.
Somebody will fill that "last" step in the stair that will make a paradigm shift to all of us..
- Agebor 7y agoYes. You might find interesting some very rated ideas as this article - Bayesian Brain. In this view, the brain is a complex system that learns to adapt to and predict its environment, similar to other complex systems like even companies.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoOf course you completely missed the point. All I am saying is that this may not be possible. This is 100% what I am saying. Let me give you a concrete example: A visual recognition algorithm. Currently the way we do this is with a trained neural net. Can a large crack team of humans reproduce the logic of this neural net in a way where it isn't a black box? Perhaps we can use abstraction and subdivide the logic into modular pieces and have different teams of people handle different components.... Or perhaps we have to leave it as a blackbox learning process. Currently there is no way to subdivide the core logic of a neural net into something even A team of humans can understand. The best possible methods we have in handling this complexity is to leave it to an automated process rather than abstracting components of the problem so that humans can understand individual pieces. I AM not saying it will be impossible for humans to ever abstract this problem into something we can understand. I am only saying it MAY be impossible to subdivide, but it is CERTAINLY impossible for a human to understand the brain as a whole. There is the possibility that complex concepts exist in the universe that cannot be understood by breaking it apart into abstract concepts. A neural net has thousands of nodes as touch points and it is highly probable that to understand it you must understand all of the thousands nodes at the SAME TIME. This is a viable possibility. Leave it to the internet to read a comment and take it the wrong way.
- dang 7y agoYour comments in this thread have broken the guidelines with swipes like "Of course you completely missed the point", "Leave it to the internet to read a comment and take it the wrong way", "Sigh", "Sheesh", and so on. That's just the sort of thing users here are asked to avoid. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and edit all that out of your comments here from now on? Also, please don't use allcaps for emphasis. That's in the guidelines too.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoAll right, fine. I will. I think the flag link has been disabled for my account. If you re-enable it that would be helpful in dealing with this problem. People are rude to me all the time on HN. And the rules of HN expect me to be civil in the face of a culture that is uncivil. If you would like me to help you promote the guidelines it would be helpful if you allow me to flag others as well instead of responding in kind.
- dang 7y agoFlagging has not been disabled for your account.