3 ms·

It's funny that most people that are actually working on AGI have stopped even bothering to provide arguments for why they think AGI it's possible to the genera

by nnq 13y ago

It's funny that most people that are actually working on AGI have stopped even bothering to provide arguments for why they think AGI it's possible to the general public, because they know they're close and that "they'll just prove that it's possible to build it by fucking building it" instead of doing armchair thinking, while AGI detractors don't lose any opportunity to launch pseudo-arguments like missiles :) ...just to bite the bate a bit: > We have no proof that artificial general intelligence can exist. Well, we had no proof that fire can be produced ultil the first paleohumans learned to make fire. We had no proof that mechanized flight was possible until we built the first flying machines. We had no proof that space flight is possible before we made it possible etc. These kinds of arguments only make some sort of sense when you reason from first principle instead of reasoning by analogy: for example if you found an argument that, starting from the current known basic laws of physics, would after some logical steps (no, analogies with "what we now know exists" don't count as logical steps) arrive at the conclusion that AGI is not possible. Elon Musk has a cute and short explanation of "reasoning from first principle" vs. "reasoning by analogy": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8#t=1356 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8#t=1356 . My point is that the way you and other people like you reason "by analogy" is just plain wrong. It's a useful way of thinking, that can help you make lots of very good business decision and profit from them. But when you apply it to technology or science it becomes obvious just how wrong it is, as you just said it: "In fairness, this was said about every amazing thing in modern life.". If you are a teacher/mentor/speaker etc., please don't expose your students or other younger minds with potential to innovate to this way of thinking! This mindset is the most effective way of killing innovation. It doesn't matter that much the topic of whether AGI is possible or not. It's this way of thinking that is extremely toxic to innovation, even it may seem quite harmless and very useful.

marvin 13y ago
>It's funny that most people that are actually working on AGI have stopped even bothering to provide arguments for why they think AGI it's possible to the general public, because they know they're close and that "they'll just prove that it's possible to build it by fucking building it" instead of doing armchair thinking, while AGI detractors don't lose any opportunity to launch pseudo-arguments like missiles :) If you've read some history, it's clear that this is exactly what the Wright brothers did when they pioneered powered flight. Three things makes Kitty Hawk a good place to test airplanes: You'll survive if you crash in the sand dunes, there is enough steady wind and there are no newspaper reporters around to make fun of your failures.

by nnq 13y ago

marvin 13y ago

>It's funny that most people that are actually working on AGI have stopped even bothering to provide arguments for why they think AGI it's possible to the general public, because they know they're close and that "they'll just prove that it's possible to build it by fucking building it" instead of doing armchair thinking, while AGI detractors don't lose any opportunity to launch pseudo-arguments like missiles :) If you've read some history, it's clear that this is exactly what the Wright brothers did when they pioneered powered flight. Three things makes Kitty Hawk a good place to test airplanes: You'll survive if you crash in the sand dunes, there is enough steady wind and there are no newspaper reporters around to make fun of your failures.