True, although logical arguments made from misinformed or half-baked technical facts aren’t helpful. Until we get even a basic sense of what methods and architectures will be involved in superintelligence, we’re arguing about science fiction and it’s pointless
-
-
-
Perhaps the discussion is too politically fraught to be had in public, but I have not seen a single sound counter argument to Stu's (pretty obvious) points so far. If beyond human level AI is built at some point (and I don't see why not), nobody knows how to make all of it safe.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
it is logically impossible you don't even understand protein folding inside a prokaryote cell. come on ! come back down to earth.
-
The argument that understanding intracellular dynamics is a necessary precondition for understanding intelligence seems unreasonably weak?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Have your wooden shoe (sabot) ready!
-
That's funny. I just named a hypothetical connectome generating algorithm the 'loom'.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is possible but it will take a very high amount of processing power and reasonable energy consuption. It might be applicable on quantum computing, however, there are at least a hundred years until we grasp the subject and also we need to take a dive in cause-effect relation.
-
This is for the general public. If "Trump" makes his mind that we wants it in 50 years, sure, it's doable. Although Pentagon signs contracts with Amazon for the general processing power.
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.