There has long been the thought that aging is programmed. Rapid replacement is a strategy and it has been working – after all we are the most successful species. Long life is not working out so well for tortoises, trees or naked mole rats.
I think Hogarth view on AI is deeply idiotic, more money and more (brilliant) monkey brains mucking around the topic won’t make much progress.
The basic problem is that WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT when we speak of “intelligence”, more performance, more tricky problems solved, yeah, but WHAT makes the tricky problems befuddling?
No idea…
So three guys got together at the pub, and decided to write and publish a completely meaningless paper, well decorated with maths.
(Re-watched the origin Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy video a few days ago, so was in the proper frame to review the paper.)
The paper proves exactly nothing. The unknowns are still unknowns. If you inject assumptions, you can get pretty much any conclusion you want. Applying a distribution to your assumptions is completely and particularly free of meaning. Science is about finding and understanding real things, not making guesses about guesses, free of fact, but well decorated with maths.
There has long been the thought that aging is programmed. Rapid replacement is a strategy and it has been working – after all we are the most successful species. Long life is not working out so well for tortoises, trees or naked mole rats.
Yes. But it is deeply counterintuitive.
I think Hogarth view on AI is deeply idiotic, more money and more (brilliant) monkey brains mucking around the topic won’t make much progress.
The basic problem is that WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT when we speak of “intelligence”, more performance, more tricky problems solved, yeah, but WHAT makes the tricky problems befuddling?
No idea…
So three guys got together at the pub, and decided to write and publish a completely meaningless paper, well decorated with maths.
(Re-watched the origin Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy video a few days ago, so was in the proper frame to review the paper.)
The paper proves exactly nothing. The unknowns are still unknowns. If you inject assumptions, you can get pretty much any conclusion you want. Applying a distribution to your assumptions is completely and particularly free of meaning. Science is about finding and understanding real things, not making guesses about guesses, free of fact, but well decorated with maths.
I am sure they had a nice time at the pub.