3 ms·
Whenever I see these Kurzweil naysayer articles, I always feel like they are overly pessimistic, or short-sighted. Just because problems seem insurmountable no
by eterpstra 14y ago
Whenever I see these Kurzweil naysayer articles, I always feel like they are overly pessimistic, or short-sighted. Just because problems seem insurmountable now, doesn't mean that they will be in a few years. People always seem to forget about the exponential growth of information technology. If you look at an insurmountable problem in the context of today's technology and speed of discover, then yeah, it will be tough to believe that we'll have sentient machines any time soon. But please do not forget that tomorrows technology will be exponentially better, faster, stronger than what we have today. In five years, the problems outlined in the article may seem like child's play.
- BruceIV 14y agoThe hardware may be exponentially better, faster, stronger, but you've still got the same people writing the software. I don't buy the whole "Moore's Law will give us strong AI." - it just feels a bit like Asimov-era sci-fi with "nuclear power will fix everything".
- BruceIV 14y agoTo provide a more concrete objection, I'll say that a human-level AI would have to have a general and expandable framework for learning, and I don't think we really have any idea how to build one. Watson is cool and all (and probably the best current counterexample to my point), but it needed a lot of domain experts with doctorates to set it up to "understand" problems in a relatively limited field.