3 ms·

You’d be funnier if you quoted what you believe I said that’s incorrect, rather than making nebulous accusations because you didn’t understand or agree with my

You’d be funnier if you quoted what you believe I said that’s incorrect, rather than making nebulous accusations because you didn’t understand or agree with my comment. Go ahead, get scientific.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Why should we get scientific? You didn't. You assumed some stuff, and came up with exponentially self-improving AI. That's not science. There is no scientific reason why global quantum communication means that an AI hits exponential growth. (If there is, you sure haven't supplied it! You've just asserted that it is so.)
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  We have papers showing how to exponentially accelerate AI using quantum computers, the same way we can accelerate other types of problems. (Finding a “best DAG” is related to lowest energy state.) Microsoft already has published a number of articles and is working on more. In general, global entanglement will give an exponential boost over isolated data centers — the same way a fully entangled computer is more powerful than a DWave. I understand a number of readers aren’t familiar with QAI research though. But that’s my point — > Why should we get scientific? You didn't. The person responding made a generic negative comment (as did you) due to not knowing the state of the art. Incorrectly “correcting” people while yourself ignorant is prevented by giving people specific corrections: if you’d taken the time to tell me what you think I’m wrong about, you’d probably realize you don’t actually have a specific thing you think I’m wrong about — you just were surprised by my conclusion. See here for more detailed arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26657056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26657056
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    But given a globally connected quantum AI, where's the science that says that that's enough to continue to improve exponentially? To actually get smarter?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Why should we get scientific? You didn't. You assumed some stuff, and came up with exponentially self-improving AI. That's not science. There is no scientific reason why global quantum communication means that an AI hits exponential growth. (If there is, you sure haven't supplied it! You've just asserted that it is so.)

bopbeepboop 6y ago
We have papers showing how to exponentially accelerate AI using quantum computers, the same way we can accelerate other types of problems. (Finding a “best DAG” is related to lowest energy state.) Microsoft already has published a number of articles and is working on more. In general, global entanglement will give an exponential boost over isolated data centers — the same way a fully entangled computer is more powerful than a DWave. I understand a number of readers aren’t familiar with QAI research though. But that’s my point — > Why should we get scientific? You didn't. The person responding made a generic negative comment (as did you) due to not knowing the state of the art. Incorrectly “correcting” people while yourself ignorant is prevented by giving people specific corrections: if you’d taken the time to tell me what you think I’m wrong about, you’d probably realize you don’t actually have a specific thing you think I’m wrong about — you just were surprised by my conclusion. See here for more detailed arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26657056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26657056
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  But given a globally connected quantum AI, where's the science that says that that's enough to continue to improve exponentially? To actually get smarter?