4 ms·

You might as well say that we gona create a Warp drive by 2100. Jump necessary for AI advancement makes settlement on Mars an easy problem. We are so far from t

by tlear 12y ago

You might as well say that we gona create a Warp drive by 2100. Jump necessary for AI advancement makes settlement on Mars an easy problem. We are so far from that we really have no idea how far it is. Human level AI when it happens and it probably will will most likely be at a stage where current tech would seem something out of Ancient Greeks time if not Stone age.

bhashkarsharma 12y ago
Wow! That far? I feel sad. Kurzweil had me hopeful that I'd be able to use it in next 30 years.
- darkmighty 12y ago
  From Terence Tao: "The funny thing about AI is that it’s a moving target. In the seventies, someone might ask “what are the goals of AI?” And you might say, “Oh, we want a computer who can beat a chess master, or who can understand actual language speech, or who can search a whole database very quickly.” We do all that now, like face recognition. All these things that we thought were AI, we can do them. But once you do them, you don’t think of them as AI. It has this connotation of some mysterious magical component to it, but when you actually solve one of these problems, you don’t solve it using magic, you solve it using clever mathematics. It’s no longer magical. It becomes science, and then you don’t think of it as AI anymore. It’s amazing how you can speak into your phone and ask for the nearest Thai restaurant, and it will find it. This would have been called AI, but we don’t think about it like that anymore. So I think, almost by definition, we will never have AI because we’ll never achieve the goals of AI or cease to be caught up with it." https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rinL25rC8LnMTzZcGjg1axT-0r-oiCnoKKH1DLQlmVA/preview?sle=true https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rinL25rC8LnMTzZcGjg1axT-...
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    This is known in religion as "god of the gaps”. We will know when we have true AI as the it will tell us and not take no for an answer :)
- danieltillett 12y ago
  If you want to feel happy again read “Robot” or "Mind Children” by Hans Moravec. He has some pretty good arguments based on human vision that support a AGI around 2030 to 2040 assuming Moore’s Law (the general not specific law) hold.
david927 12y ago
No one knows. It's a black swan. It's not predictable as a rule. I fully expect it within 30 years simply based on the rate of progression, overall (not in the field of AI specifically).
- danieltillett 12y ago
  >No one knows. It's a black swan. It's not predictable as a rule. As an Australian I always have found the term black swan amusing as all our swans are black - I would actually be shocked to see a white swan. More seriously why do you think 30 years?
  - david927 12y ago
    For the similar reasons to what Kurzweil puts forth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near Here it is in seven quick minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE (Note: I think he's wrong in how he thinks it will unfold, but right in thinking the doubling every year of technology, in general, will contribute to bringing it about.)
seanflyon 12y ago
We are moving fast, we are even accelerating fast and we have an incredibly far ways to go. In a situation like this even the most reasonable, well informed estimate could be off by an order of magnitude.

by tlear 12y ago

bhashkarsharma 12y ago

Wow! That far? I feel sad. Kurzweil had me hopeful that I'd be able to use it in next 30 years.

darkmighty 12y ago
From Terence Tao: "The funny thing about AI is that it’s a moving target. In the seventies, someone might ask “what are the goals of AI?” And you might say, “Oh, we want a computer who can beat a chess master, or who can understand actual language speech, or who can search a whole database very quickly.” We do all that now, like face recognition. All these things that we thought were AI, we can do them. But once you do them, you don’t think of them as AI. It has this connotation of some mysterious magical component to it, but when you actually solve one of these problems, you don’t solve it using magic, you solve it using clever mathematics. It’s no longer magical. It becomes science, and then you don’t think of it as AI anymore. It’s amazing how you can speak into your phone and ask for the nearest Thai restaurant, and it will find it. This would have been called AI, but we don’t think about it like that anymore. So I think, almost by definition, we will never have AI because we’ll never achieve the goals of AI or cease to be caught up with it." https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rinL25rC8LnMTzZcGjg1axT-0r-oiCnoKKH1DLQlmVA/preview?sle=true https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rinL25rC8LnMTzZcGjg1axT-...
- danieltillett 12y ago
  This is known in religion as "god of the gaps”. We will know when we have true AI as the it will tell us and not take no for an answer :)
danieltillett 12y ago
If you want to feel happy again read “Robot” or "Mind Children” by Hans Moravec. He has some pretty good arguments based on human vision that support a AGI around 2030 to 2040 assuming Moore’s Law (the general not specific law) hold.

david927 12y ago

No one knows. It's a black swan. It's not predictable as a rule. I fully expect it within 30 years simply based on the rate of progression, overall (not in the field of AI specifically).

danieltillett 12y ago
>No one knows. It's a black swan. It's not predictable as a rule. As an Australian I always have found the term black swan amusing as all our swans are black - I would actually be shocked to see a white swan. More seriously why do you think 30 years?
- david927 12y ago
  For the similar reasons to what Kurzweil puts forth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near Here it is in seven quick minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE (Note: I think he's wrong in how he thinks it will unfold, but right in thinking the doubling every year of technology, in general, will contribute to bringing it about.)

seanflyon 12y ago

We are moving fast, we are even accelerating fast and we have an incredibly far ways to go. In a situation like this even the most reasonable, well informed estimate could be off by an order of magnitude.