3 ms·

Pretty much this. Spending money on an intractable problem won't make it tractable. And we still don't know whether AGI is tractable at all.

by the_af 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I don't have a problem with spending money on it. How do you find out whether it's tractable? By trying to do it. What I object to is the certainty of the article. The author is an optimist, which is fine. And there has been some progress made, which increases the feelings of optimism. But I don't think it's warranted at this time to make the optimistic assumptions that the article makes.
- mkaic 5y ago
  Hi! Author here. I tried to qualify a good chunk of my assumptions with "I think" or "I believe", because I don't want to come off as thinking I can predict the future (nobody can!), but maybe the article still reads too confidently. How would you suggest I present my thoughts in a more nuanced manner in the future?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Um, wait. You want me to have concrete, helpful suggestions rather than just criticism? It's hard for me to do this, because I think that your position is completely wrong. That doesn't make me a very charitable critic. But for me, my problem is that I don't think intelligence/consciousness is just an algorithm. So for a reader like me, maybe the way to do it would be to start by stating certain presuppositions: Moore's law continues to approximately hold for GPUs or for the total compute available for trying to run an AI, algorithm is a major component of intelligence, and as the algorithm becomes more intelligence, it becomes capable of finding still more intelligent algorithms (with no asymptotic limit, or if there is one, it's past the point needed to reach a singularity). And it's fine to say that you think/believe those presuppositions! Then, from those presuppositions, you think that the following things follow. (Or, if you think you can demonstrate those presuppositions, they quit being presuppositions. But then it becomes a different article, and probably a considerably longer one.) Then someone like me can say that they don't believe your presuppositions, even if they agree that the rest of it probably follows from them. But maybe I'm not your target audience.
    - mkaic 5y ago
      Thanks! And yeah, criticism is hard haha, maybe I was being too demanding :) I think your position is totally valid and I appreciate you taking the time to respond with ways I could have made my case even just a bit more interesting to you. Have a wonderful day!
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        No, you weren't too demanding. I was more dissing my own reaction. Criticism is easy, constructive is hard, and... well... I lean toward the easy ;-)

Pretty much this. Spending money on an intractable problem won't make it tractable. And we still don't know whether AGI is tractable at all.

by the_af 5y ago

Pretty much this. Spending money on an intractable problem won't make it tractable. And we still don't know whether AGI is tractable at all.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I don't have a problem with spending money on it. How do you find out whether it's tractable? By trying to do it. What I object to is the certainty of the article. The author is an optimist, which is fine. And there has been some progress made, which increases the feelings of optimism. But I don't think it's warranted at this time to make the optimistic assumptions that the article makes.

mkaic 5y ago
Hi! Author here. I tried to qualify a good chunk of my assumptions with "I think" or "I believe", because I don't want to come off as thinking I can predict the future (nobody can!), but maybe the article still reads too confidently. How would you suggest I present my thoughts in a more nuanced manner in the future?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Um, wait. You want me to have concrete, helpful suggestions rather than just criticism? It's hard for me to do this, because I think that your position is completely wrong. That doesn't make me a very charitable critic. But for me, my problem is that I don't think intelligence/consciousness is just an algorithm. So for a reader like me, maybe the way to do it would be to start by stating certain presuppositions: Moore's law continues to approximately hold for GPUs or for the total compute available for trying to run an AI, algorithm is a major component of intelligence, and as the algorithm becomes more intelligence, it becomes capable of finding still more intelligent algorithms (with no asymptotic limit, or if there is one, it's past the point needed to reach a singularity). And it's fine to say that you think/believe those presuppositions! Then, from those presuppositions, you think that the following things follow. (Or, if you think you can demonstrate those presuppositions, they quit being presuppositions. But then it becomes a different article, and probably a considerably longer one.) Then someone like me can say that they don't believe your presuppositions, even if they agree that the rest of it probably follows from them. But maybe I'm not your target audience.
  - mkaic 5y ago
    Thanks! And yeah, criticism is hard haha, maybe I was being too demanding :) I think your position is totally valid and I appreciate you taking the time to respond with ways I could have made my case even just a bit more interesting to you. Have a wonderful day!
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      No, you weren't too demanding. I was more dissing my own reaction. Criticism is easy, constructive is hard, and... well... I lean toward the easy ;-)