5 ms·
Oh, I certainly don't have an anti argument. We'll end up destroying ourselves, be obliterated by cosmic events, or eventually run civilization from computer s
by seiji 14y ago
Oh, I certainly don't have an anti argument. We'll end up destroying ourselves, be obliterated by cosmic events, or eventually run civilization from computer simulations.
People have just been saying "real soon now" for 60 years. Obviously we are more "real soon now" than back then, but it's still unclear how soon we can be.
My favorite knock down is the "when computers get fast enough, we'll magically have AGI/hard AI." If that were the case, we could have really really slow versions now.
Theoretical vs. practical architectures matter. Nobody can imagine an iPad's software ecosystem if your model is vacuum tubes and single tape turing machines. But when you hit CPUs, shrinking processes, and GPUs with 6 teraflops on a card, you see how impossible your goals were with a 0.2 MHz room-sized computer with 500k of memory.
If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
- marshallp 14y ago2011 and 2012 have been watershed years. IBM watson, speech recognition using neural nets beating speech researchers, neural nets on imagenet beating computer vision researchers. The trend is that automated machine learning wins. You can be on the right side of history (automated machine learning) or take opposite side (and be wrong).
- seiji 14y agoI think we're on different pages of the same book. The current stuff is all well and good, but it's the Penn & Teller phase of AI/ML/GMs. We'll dispense with the façade of ability and instill actual ability eventually. I'm just not overly rah-rah about the recent incremental developments. I don't mean to overly pooh-pooh your rah-rah, but my brain is telling my fingers someone is wrong on the internet!