3 ms·

> It's often the people who popularize ideas that are remembered for them Unfair, that is not an answer to what he actually said: > Those text books are unlik

> It's often the people who popularize ideas that are remembered for them Unfair, that is not an answer to what he actually said: > Those text books are unlikely to be read by humans in the same physical form we exist today You're talking humans, he is not.

Tloewald 11y ago
How does it matter whether it's humans or uploaded humans or pure AIs that we're talking about. You think that AIs will necessarily be driven by pure logic and all agree on the fundamental root of any given idea? I love how computer scientists seem to decide they've "solved" AI because neural nets can sorta- kinda- do something that we do unconsciously (like see) and blithely assume that we just need a bigger net to get "thinking". When have we ever built something more complex than, say, a bunch of rocks piled on each other, without understanding its basic workings?
- DougMerritt 11y ago
  What are you going on about? You seem to have a hot button about strong AI being impossible, but no one here was talking about AI. The OP was talking about future changes to biological humans. > I love how computer scientists seem to decide they've "solved" AI because neural nets can sorta- kinda- do something Citation needed. It turns out there are exactly zero computer scientists who have ever said anything even remotely like that. But again, that's wildly off topic.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    > Those text books are unlikely to be read by humans in the same physical form we exist today (unless something catastrophic happens), and the class of intelligent beings dominating that period will trace their lineage directly to inventors and scientists than businessmen. Sounds like assumed strong AI to me. > Citation needed. It turns out there are exactly zero computer scientists who have ever said anything even remotely like that. Why cite, you've apparently done the lit search. From memory there's: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." That was in 1993 -- so we've got almost ten years left. Phew. http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge Now he's a math professor, although his profession is currently "computer scientist" but I expect it to be very easy to find many other computer scientists who've said similar things, even going back to before neural nets. They may not be computer scientists you (or I) respect but... I think some computer scientists spoke with similar confidence about LISP, but can't be bothered to find citations. (Obviously hard, since there aren't any, right?) For really off-topic assumptions of this kind that push my button -- slower-than-light travel to other stars is often discussed as though it's a solved problem (e.g. Fermi's Paradox) despite the fact that it would require a really complex machine that was able to work flawlessly for hundreds or thousands of years. Again, something we're ludicrously far away from.
    - kedean 11y ago
      That's not a very good example. He did not claim anybody had solved AI, he predicted that somebody would, based on trends at the time. You can't fault people for being optimistic about the future.

Tloewald 11y ago

How does it matter whether it's humans or uploaded humans or pure AIs that we're talking about. You think that AIs will necessarily be driven by pure logic and all agree on the fundamental root of any given idea? I love how computer scientists seem to decide they've "solved" AI because neural nets can sorta- kinda- do something that we do unconsciously (like see) and blithely assume that we just need a bigger net to get "thinking". When have we ever built something more complex than, say, a bunch of rocks piled on each other, without understanding its basic workings?

DougMerritt 11y ago
What are you going on about? You seem to have a hot button about strong AI being impossible, but no one here was talking about AI. The OP was talking about future changes to biological humans. > I love how computer scientists seem to decide they've "solved" AI because neural nets can sorta- kinda- do something Citation needed. It turns out there are exactly zero computer scientists who have ever said anything even remotely like that. But again, that's wildly off topic.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Tloewald 11y ago
  > Those text books are unlikely to be read by humans in the same physical form we exist today (unless something catastrophic happens), and the class of intelligent beings dominating that period will trace their lineage directly to inventors and scientists than businessmen. Sounds like assumed strong AI to me. > Citation needed. It turns out there are exactly zero computer scientists who have ever said anything even remotely like that. Why cite, you've apparently done the lit search. From memory there's: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." That was in 1993 -- so we've got almost ten years left. Phew. http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge Now he's a math professor, although his profession is currently "computer scientist" but I expect it to be very easy to find many other computer scientists who've said similar things, even going back to before neural nets. They may not be computer scientists you (or I) respect but... I think some computer scientists spoke with similar confidence about LISP, but can't be bothered to find citations. (Obviously hard, since there aren't any, right?) For really off-topic assumptions of this kind that push my button -- slower-than-light travel to other stars is often discussed as though it's a solved problem (e.g. Fermi's Paradox) despite the fact that it would require a really complex machine that was able to work flawlessly for hundreds or thousands of years. Again, something we're ludicrously far away from.
  - kedean 11y ago
    That's not a very good example. He did not claim anybody had solved AI, he predicted that somebody would, based on trends at the time. You can't fault people for being optimistic about the future.