From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 13:36:22 MDT
From: Kevin Freels [mailto:megaquark@hotmail.com]
> Just a thought..... It doesn't seem likely that
> massive breakthroughs are predictable 20 years in
> advance. In 1949,noone expected to be on the moon in
> 1969. In 1883, powered flight wasn't expected anytime
> soon. In 1976, the current access to information was
> unfathomable except to a few people speculating. There
> was no real expectation of it happening. Thus is the
> nature of discovery.
Certainly. There could be a breakthrough next year that changes
everything in the field of AI. I'm not saying it's impossible, just
that there's no hard evidence to suggest that it's going to happen.
In the absence of that evidence, and in the context of decades of
unmet expectations for AI, I think it makes sense to take a more
conservative view of the field.
Or, to appeal to the Cult of Bayes out there, what priors would lead a
Bayesian to believe that AGI is anywhere near realization? Whatever
they are, I must not have them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 13:46:21 MDT