45 ms·
It's the same sort of idea as people who think being able to look stuff up in wikipedia is the same as knowing it (and my pet peeve, thinking they're contributi
by version_five 4y ago
It's the same sort of idea as people who think being able to look stuff up in wikipedia is the same as knowing it (and my pet peeve, thinking they're contributing to a discussion by reading a wikipedia article outloud)
I'm not sure where it comes from, I suspect it's just immaturity. I've seen it here but also in the real world, I'm not sure HN overindexes on it, maybe even the opposite
- sph 4y agoWhen you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. After the failed AI hype of the turn of the millennium, we finally have a breakthrough in a niche of machine learning, so there is a major push to see if this impressive yet very limited piece of technology is just a few layers and GPUs away from AGI. Sorry, and not to undervalue what an incredible achievement these past few years in AI have been, what we have today is no more than a glorified, generalised Markov chain. The best you could have is something "smarter", but still as versatile as a gnat. From there to have mammal levels of thought complexity, you need to implement theory of the mind, consciousness and sentience which we still have no clue how the hell it is or works.
- hprotagonist 4y ago> From there to have mammal levels of thought complexity, you need to implement pattern recognition, abstraction, theory of the mind, consciousness and sentience which we still have no clue how the hell it is or works. it’s probably not a coincidence that the undercurrent of “because those things are all illusions!” is fairly visible these days. Can’t have a failure if you redefine it out of existence!