3 ms·
Nobody knows if building AGI is even possible (or what that even means). So it would seem reckless to put all of our eggs in that basket. Not to mention that i
by jebarker 3y ago
Nobody knows if building AGI is even possible (or what that even means). So it would seem reckless to put all of our eggs in that basket.
Not to mention that it seems immoral to mandate what every single human being does with their lives.
- graypegg 3y ago+1 for “what that even means”. I keep seeing people say “AGI” but no one will define it for me. It’s always “you know it when you see it” or “when software can do anything”. I’m alright with “things will continue to advance” but people assume it’s a single event that happens, not a goal post that represents “the dream” that moves 1 step further away every 1 step we advance. Just shouting random platitudes and religious grandiosity at people is just annoying.
- kylebenzle 3y agoThis is a good write-up below, but why not just say AGI is something that is indistinguishable from a human? That definition seems to work. https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-scenarios-for-the-future-of-agi-868fce138d2 https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-sc...
- Filligree 3y agoBecause we'll never have something indistinguishable from human. Once AI is as good as a human at everything, it'll also be far better than human at something. Possibly most things.
- kylebenzle 3y agoThe human mind is arguably proof that AGI is possible.
- jebarker 3y agoNo, it’s proof that human intelligence is possible. Since we don’t know how that works either we can’t really draw any conclusions about the viability of replicating it artificially (if that’s the definitions of AGI).