> Because AI will save the world or destroy it?
Because it can significantly help us to accomplish our goals -
whatever that is ATM. Destroying the Earth might be in our best
interest at some point in the future. But not now I guess :). Of
course depends on who will control the AGI, but powerful t
>From a promotional perspective these ideas seem quite weak. To most
people AI saving the world or destroying it just sounds crackpot (a
cartoon caricature of technology), whereas "helping us to accomplish
our goals" is too vague.
On 31/10/2007, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Becau
>From a promotional perspective these ideas seem quite weak.
It was an addition to other complex and relatively near future issues
e.g. the longevity and demographic related problems mentioned by
Minsky in his "emergency" presentation.
What are your suggestions?
>AI saving the world .. sounds cra
AGI does not need promoting. AGI could potentially replace all human labor,
currently valued at US $66 trillion per year worldwide. Google has gone from
nothing to the fifth biggest company in the U.S. in 10 years by solving just a
little bit of of the AI problem better than its competitors.
We
Matt Mahoney wrote:
AGI does not need promoting. AGI could potentially replace all human labor,
currently valued at US $66 trillion per year worldwide. Google has gone from
nothing to the fifth biggest company in the U.S. in 10 years by solving just a
little bit of of the AI problem better than
On 11/2/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the worst possible summary of the situation, because instead of
> dealing with each issue as if there were many possibilities, it pretends
> that there is only one possible outcome to each issue.
>
> In this respect it is as bad as
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Example 4: "Each successive generation gets smarter, faster, and less
> dependent on human cooperation." Absolutely not true. If "humans" take
> advantage of the ability to enhance their own intelligence up to the
> same level as the AGI syst
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Example 4: "Each successive generation gets smarter, faster, and less
dependent on human cooperation." Absolutely not true. If "humans" take
advantage of the ability to enhance their own intelligence up to the
same level a
