4 ms·

EY’s arguments don’t seem to take physics into account. That’s why they are not taken very seriously. To many it sounds like: volcanos are dangerous. What if th

EY’s arguments don’t seem to take physics into account. That’s why they are not taken very seriously. To many it sounds like: volcanos are dangerous. What if there were a billion volcanos? We would all die. Everything individual sentence is true. Volcanos are dangerous. If there were a billion of them the world might be uninhabitable. The thing preventing a billion volcanos is like… thermodynamics

gonehome 4y ago
This is wrong, computers can operate at billions of operations per second. You can wave hands and say the words “thermodynamics” but it doesn’t actually mean anything. The claim that computers just can’t do X because “physics” looks weaker every day. Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intuitive leap.
- flappyeagle 4y ago
  > Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intuitive leap. This is all ass-pulling. The hardware is or is not good enough (it's not). We either have found a software breakthrough or not (we haven't).
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    >> We either have found a software breakthrough or not (we haven't). Well it is not clearly not AGI but even the improvement from GPT3 to GPT4 seems to me at least to reflect what one might describe as a "software breakthrough."