3 ms·

Sure, because "30 years" is code for, "far enough in the future to obviate that nothing we see today would predicate such a jump -- but still, it will happen."

Sure, because "30 years" is code for, "far enough in the future to obviate that nothing we see today would predicate such a jump -- but still, it will happen." The timelines are silly; the prediction is not.

jacquesm 12y ago
It's the timeline I have a problem with. Any timeline with just two digits in it for AGI would do well to address the steps required to divide those years up into discrete steps of what bits and pieces will be accomplished by what (say) 5 year interval. Saving all the hard bits for the last 5 years would be considered cheating. For now - as far as I can see - we are no closer to the goal than where we were 35 years ago but we know better how much we are still missing and all the hard parts are still in front of us.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Predicting AI progress isn't like predicting other things were you can lay out all the steps that need to be done and make a plan. It's more like solving a series of hard technical problems. No one knows what the solutions will be or how long it will take someone to invent them. There were perfectly educated people that said there would never be flying machines, 2 years before the Wright brothers succeeded.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's exactly it. This is like saying there will be flying machines in 30 years after seeing a bird for the first time without even realizing that you need to know about aerodynamics and that you need a technology based society to support the development of engines as the prime mover before you can have powered flight. It's not about saying it can't be done it is all about saying it can be done within a specific time-frame. Key inventions don't happen 'on command' unless the only thing required is a brute force search for something that is already possible in principle (say electric light).

3 ms·

Sure, because "30 years" is code for, "far enough in the future to obviate that nothing we see today would predicate such a jump -- but still, it will happen."

by david927 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago
It's the timeline I have a problem with. Any timeline with just two digits in it for AGI would do well to address the steps required to divide those years up into discrete steps of what bits and pieces will be accomplished by what (say) 5 year interval. Saving all the hard bits for the last 5 years would be considered cheating. For now - as far as I can see - we are no closer to the goal than where we were 35 years ago but we know better how much we are still missing and all the hard parts are still in front of us.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Predicting AI progress isn't like predicting other things were you can lay out all the steps that need to be done and make a plan. It's more like solving a series of hard technical problems. No one knows what the solutions will be or how long it will take someone to invent them. There were perfectly educated people that said there would never be flying machines, 2 years before the Wright brothers succeeded.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's exactly it. This is like saying there will be flying machines in 30 years after seeing a bird for the first time without even realizing that you need to know about aerodynamics and that you need a technology based society to support the development of engines as the prime mover before you can have powered flight. It's not about saying it can't be done it is all about saying it can be done within a specific time-frame. Key inventions don't happen 'on command' unless the only thing required is a brute force search for something that is already possible in principle (say electric light).