4 ms·

> And, I'm not talking about the indirect applications of a calculator or a specific intelligence. This was an attempt to prevent this exact chain of response.

by nomel 8mo ago

> And, I'm not talking about the indirect applications of a calculator or a specific intelligence. This was an attempt to prevent this exact chain of response. I calculator can only be used indirectly to solve a practical problem. A more general intelligence is required to know a calculator is needed, and how to break down the problem in a way that a calculator can be used effectively. For example, you can't solve any real world problem with a calculator, beyond holding some papers down, or maybe keeping a door open. But, an engineer (or other general intelligence) with a calculator can solve real world problems with it. Tools vs tool users. The user is the general bit, not the specific tool that's useless on its own! I think we've reached the limits of communication. Cheers!

godelski 8mo ago
I can definitely write programs to solve real world problems. I think you're just so set on your answer that you're not recognizing the flexibility that exists. Your argument isn't so different from all the ones I hear that argue that science is useless and that it's engineers who do everything. It has the exact same form and smell albeit with different words. But as generalists we understand abstraction, right?
- nomel 8mo ago
  yes you, a general intelligence, write a specific expert for a specific problem. > If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work. was to prevent this comment chain. I think we'll have to give up at this point, with whatever smells you may be attempting to communicate with me. Cheers!

by nomel 8mo ago

godelski 8mo ago

I can definitely write programs to solve real world problems. I think you're just so set on your answer that you're not recognizing the flexibility that exists. Your argument isn't so different from all the ones I hear that argue that science is useless and that it's engineers who do everything. It has the exact same form and smell albeit with different words. But as generalists we understand abstraction, right?

nomel 8mo ago
yes you, a general intelligence, write a specific expert for a specific problem. > If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work. was to prevent this comment chain. I think we'll have to give up at this point, with whatever smells you may be attempting to communicate with me. Cheers!