“Well, yeah, OK, so it’s a dumb algorithm that just splices together bits of text it found on the internet, but that’s all we humans do too, so it’s time to panic” is a nice illustration of my theory here about why people have ignorant opinions about AI:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1096866752456060928 …
-
-
“The people who say there is no fire in the theatre, and that the images of a fire on the movie screen were not the same thing, so people panicking about that can calm down—they have not proven there is no fire in the theater.” 2/2
-
That paragraph is just saying that AGI is possible in principle and that current research might eventually lead there, even though it might take "a hundred or a thousand years" (previous paragraph)?
- 26 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Those reasons actually are dumb. They were dumb when Douglas Hofstadter said a machine that can play chess would be too smart to want to play chess without getting bored, then it was dumb when they said that chess was mechanical but a game like Go requires human creativity.
-
All those arguments do is scare people when it inevitably turns out that limited AIs really can do those things. There are better arguments that we should use instead.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.