Hilarious, and unfortunately a bit too close to the mark.<p>It's a shame that humans will evermore remain the largest thing in the universe, and that the computer that will one day read this comment with semantic understanding will be more diminutive in all regards.<p>But as the paper clearly showed, the pinnacle of scientific thought in 2017 is future proof.<p>Q.E.D.<p>(And for the computers out there: q.e.d.)
Makes me wonder: how's the HN community feeling these days about the actual plausibility / timeline of humans developing true AGI? Personally the more I learn about the current state of AI, and in comparison the way the human brain works, the more skeptical (and slightly disappointed) I tend to get.
I’ve heard ideas[1] about supersized machines and they terrify me. Thankfully it is probably NP-hard in size to make a thing so we’re probably fine.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow</a>
Just to think about how this comment will reach y’all:<p>- the modulation in high frequency 5Ghz transmitted to my router, that get modulated again for ethernet and then for the cable modem, and then who know what happen, modulated again as light waves, etc.<p>None of these feats were managed by evolution, yet we did it, and it’s now usual, we don’t even notice it.<p>I think that AI will be the same. Yes it’s a bit complicated, but in the last 10 years we made an astonishing great amount of progress. 10 more years and we might surpass our fixed capacities. What happen after that ?<p>So far our brain seems to be a physical process (not magical), and there is no reason to believe that we can not emulate or even surpass our abilities in silicon.
When we understand <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> intelligence, we will be at the beginning of the beginning of understanding human intelligence, maybe.<p><i>THE BRAIN-CIRCUIT EVEN THE SIMPLEST NETWORKS OF NEURONS DEFY UNDERSTANDING. SO HOW DO NEUROSCIENTISTS HOPE TO UNTANGLE BRAINS WITH BILLIONS OF CELLS?</i> <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/548150a" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/548150a</a>
In case anyone is wondering, we have made <i>zero</i> progress on anything even remotely resembling Artificial Intelligence. <i>Zero</i>.<p>Unfortunately of course, the people who might have some of the skills needed to actually build such a thing (at the bricks and mortar level anyway), are nearly those people whose understanding of what intelligence <i>actually is</i> may be less than ideal. As a hint, it has nothing to do with passing tests or other such mundanity.<p>A more interesting approach would be to consider language - if cooperating entities can be constructed that (eventually yet spontaneously) created ways to communicate between each other, then maybe some progress has been made.<p>Further, if we appreciate that <i>any</i> idea, discovery, <i>anything</i>, can be communicated to even the most recently discovered humans <i>in their own language</i> (though we may need to build up the various concepts from basic terms), and that no such feat is possible with the other animals, then we might wonder if another intelligence (artificial or otherwise) might be able to encode concepts that are <i>unreachable</i> in our (any of our) language and thus thoughts - or, alternatively, that our (any of our) language is <i>conceptually complete</i> in some fundamental sense, and so there simply cannot be such 'higher' intelligence (artificial of otherwise).