Mike Tintner wrote:
Samantha:From what you said above $50M will do the entire job. If that
is all
that is standing between us and AGI then surely we can get on with it in
all haste.
Oh for gawdsake, this is such a tedious discussion. I would suggest the
following is a reasonable *framework* for any discussions - although it
is also a framework to end discussions for the moment.
1) Given our general ignorance, everyone is, strictly, entitled to
their opinions about the future of AGI. Ben is entitled to his view that
it will only take $50M or thereabouts.
BUT
2) Not a SINGLE problem of AGI has been solved yet. Not a damn one. Is
anyone arguing different? And until you've solved one, you can hardly
make *reasonable* predictions about how long it will take to solve the
rest - predictions that anyone, including yourself should take
seriously- especially if you've got any sense, any awareness of AI's
long, ridiculous and incorrigible record of crazy predictions here, (and
that's by Minsky's & Simon's as well as lesser lights) - by people also
making predictions without having solved any of AGI's problems. All
investors beware. Massive health & wealth warnings.
MEANWHILE
3)Others - and I'm not the only one here - take a view more like: the
human brain/body is the most awesomely complex machine in the known
universe, the product of billions of years of evolution. To emulate it,
or parallel its powers, is going to take more like many not just
trillions but "zillions" of dollars - many times global output, many,
many Microsoft's. Now right now that's a reasonable POV too.
But until you've solved one, just a measly one of AGI's problems,
there's not a lot of point in further discussion, is there? Nobody's
really gaining from it, are they? It's just masturbation, isn't it?
Mike,
Your comments are irresponsible. Many problems of AGI have been solved.
If you disagree with that, specify exactly what you mean by a "problem
of AGI", and let us list them. I have discovered the complex systems
problem: this is a major breakthrough. You cannot understand it, or
why it is a major breakthrough, but that makes no odds.
Everything you say in this post is based on your own ignorance of what
AGI actually is. What you are really saying is "Nobody has been able to
make me understand what AGI has achieved, so AGI is useless".
Sorry, but your posts are sounding more and more like incoherent rants.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
