5 ms·

100 to 200 years is a very long time. Look at the exponential nature of technology, and even deep learning. Only in 2012 had the image network reached 90% accur

100 to 200 years is a very long time. Look at the exponential nature of technology, and even deep learning. Only in 2012 had the image network reached 90% accuracy levels, and now we have all sort of networks for all sorts of things, including style transfer for videos.

officehero 6y ago
The big problem is that the populace do not understand statistics. As soon as a self driving car kills someone the witch hunt begins and the whole fleet needs to be retracted until investigation is over. Can your image network solve this problem?
- cercatrova 6y ago
  It's like nuclear power. It just has to continue regardless of how many deaths since the number of deaths will be lower than other methods, in this case coal and fossil fuel deaths, and in the case of self driving, manual driving accidents.
  - erklik 6y ago
    and like nuclear power, it is the politics that will kill* it, not the technological progress. * - Yes, Nuclear is not dead, but is not being used anywhere close to the potential it has i.e. effectively dead.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
There's nothing to suggest technological growth will be exponential forever. It's just as likely we've gotten all the easy stuff the last century and now everything else is much harder.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  Maybe so, but there isn't much evidence of a slowdown while there is a lot of evidence of acceleration, such as time to new tech, re: hunter gatherer to agriculture to industrial revolution to information revolution to potentially genetic/biotech/AI revolution in the future.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight. False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer. We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.
    - satvikpendem 6y ago
      The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Immunotherapy for cancer is actually making great progress. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expectancy-goes-up-as-cancer-deaths-go-down/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expe... Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-2020s https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-20...
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Like your article says, most of those deaths are things like less people smoking, and small increases in treating/early detection of specific cancers. But the underlying problem hasn't been solved. That is an evolution, not a revolution. Which is my point - less and less revolutions, more and more money spent, for small evolutions. > Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. Which, again, isn't scientific progress. If it's a sociological problem it's not really a scientific breakthrough - it could have been solved decades ago if the will was there. In fact I'd say we can gain MORE from sociological improvements, not pie in the sky science.
- rtsil 6y ago
  That supposes that we've reached the flattening upper section of the S-curve of technology, right about now. There's nothing that suggests that. Various techs do reach that stage periodically, but nothing indicates that technology in general does, quite the contrary. And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    The s-curve of technology is not meant to be applied to universal technological improvements in a civilization. It just doesn't work. > And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data. It doesn't matter how fast you process data if you can't physically alter the scenario. No amount of data can make the carnot cycle more efficient or reduce entropy. I'm sure the Romans thought Europe would never enter the dark ages too.
deathanatos 6y ago
Yes, like the other day I pointed Google Lens at a QR code! The AI dutifully recognized the QR code … as a QR code, and promptly searched the web for other pictures of "QR code".

officehero 6y ago

The big problem is that the populace do not understand statistics. As soon as a self driving car kills someone the witch hunt begins and the whole fleet needs to be retracted until investigation is over. Can your image network solve this problem?

cercatrova 6y ago
It's like nuclear power. It just has to continue regardless of how many deaths since the number of deaths will be lower than other methods, in this case coal and fossil fuel deaths, and in the case of self driving, manual driving accidents.
- erklik 6y ago
  and like nuclear power, it is the politics that will kill* it, not the technological progress. * - Yes, Nuclear is not dead, but is not being used anywhere close to the potential it has i.e. effectively dead.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

There's nothing to suggest technological growth will be exponential forever. It's just as likely we've gotten all the easy stuff the last century and now everything else is much harder.

cercatrova 6y ago
Maybe so, but there isn't much evidence of a slowdown while there is a lot of evidence of acceleration, such as time to new tech, re: hunter gatherer to agriculture to industrial revolution to information revolution to potentially genetic/biotech/AI revolution in the future.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight. False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer. We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.
  - satvikpendem 6y ago
    The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Immunotherapy for cancer is actually making great progress. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expectancy-goes-up-as-cancer-deaths-go-down/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expe... Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-2020s https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-20...
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Like your article says, most of those deaths are things like less people smoking, and small increases in treating/early detection of specific cancers. But the underlying problem hasn't been solved. That is an evolution, not a revolution. Which is my point - less and less revolutions, more and more money spent, for small evolutions. > Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. Which, again, isn't scientific progress. If it's a sociological problem it's not really a scientific breakthrough - it could have been solved decades ago if the will was there. In fact I'd say we can gain MORE from sociological improvements, not pie in the sky science.
rtsil 6y ago
That supposes that we've reached the flattening upper section of the S-curve of technology, right about now. There's nothing that suggests that. Various techs do reach that stage periodically, but nothing indicates that technology in general does, quite the contrary. And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  The s-curve of technology is not meant to be applied to universal technological improvements in a civilization. It just doesn't work. > And what the past sees as hard often becomes less hard (I'm not going to say easy, because technology is never easy) in the future thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and increased speed of processing data. It doesn't matter how fast you process data if you can't physically alter the scenario. No amount of data can make the carnot cycle more efficient or reduce entropy. I'm sure the Romans thought Europe would never enter the dark ages too.

deathanatos 6y ago

Yes, like the other day I pointed Google Lens at a QR code! The AI dutifully recognized the QR code … as a QR code, and promptly searched the web for other pictures of "QR code".