4 ms·

Just another naysayer. At least he's not one of those "but H+ is unethical/against god's will" guys.

• fchollet 14y ago
  I am in fact refusing to argue in the realm of opinion, and that is why I am proposing a valid mathematical model to support my hypothesis. But I suppose you did not read past the title? Sorry for hurting your faith in the Singularity...
  • coldarchon 14y ago
    You are not using a valid mathematical method because paradigm shifts include emotions and social behavior. What you obviously left out or just don't understand is that AI is not bound to pain or instincts of self-preservation. When the time has come for an AI to supersede the human intelligence the singularity will happen faster than the writing of your non-scientific patchwork article. Arrogance is unjustified because your arguments are without any solid background and only show someone in research at the beginning of his career. If you are young you should better listen than speak out loud. Saying scientific progress is linear is a pathetic explanation of someone who obviously compares scaling to a paradigm shift. Of course being able to write 10GB on 1cm² of a hard-disk was done by researchers, but they took a hard-disk with 10MB on 1cm² and tried to make it smaller. That's scaling and not scientific progress which could result in a paradigm shift or even a singularity. My only advice for you, as I am myself am too arrogant to write more, is that you take the works of John von Neumann about AI. Then you compare the maximum different states of the human brain to the actual capabilities of super computers, find the break-even-point with Moore's law, then add 10 years of progress to improve the software and you have 2040.