how does this guy consistently write mini-Paul Graham essays?
Because he basically is mini-Paul Graham.
I think everyone is wondering this haha
AI
11–20 of 317 posts
Re: AI
#1210 points in 10 minutes. If multiple accounts weren't used, that must be a ready-worthy article.
As others have pointed out, the domain probably earned some points all by itself (and multiple submissions, which act as additional votes on the primary submission). It was also posted by a (popular) YC alum, which typically also accelerates upvotes.
Re: AI
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
(samaltman.com) Most likely assumed read-worthy based on the author.
Fair enough, but is the author's name alone sufficient? Surely the article wasn't fully read by every upvoter.
I think there are people whose writings are of generally high enough quality or sufficiently provocative or informative enough that nearly anything they decide to publish would be worth reading.
Re: AI
#14I believe human-level general intelligence (and beyond) is already inevitable, even if we don't make significant developments in "solving" intelligence. Projects that are already developing stuff like this (e.g. IBM Blue Brain) are just copying the human brain as closely as possible. Of course, this isn't as efficient as it could be (they simulate it all at the molecular level, so you can only get 1 neuron per CPU). However, as Moore's Law progresses, even if we don't make the software more efficient, we will eventually be able to create a fully functional simulation.
But if you look at the history of technology, things we create aren't usually exactly based on models seen in nature. Airplanes aren't exactly like birds. I believe we will find a more "man made" model for general intelligence (maybe not even a neuronal model) that works much more efficiently with the hardware we have available.
Going back to the airplane analogy, we already have the people who strap wooden wings to their arms and jump off buildings (like Blue Brain), but we are looking for the first Wright brothers design.
Re: AI
#15Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
It's certainly not something to be published in a scientific journal, but it's a nice subject to bring up and spark discussion on now and then.
Re: AI
#16Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
Maybe the second sentence is being taken as a prophecy.
Re: AI
#17Goodbye HN!
Re: AI
#18Interesting post. The way I look at it is from the perspective of a human baby. How do they become intelligent? They have the "sensors" to detect features and will be able to recognize their parents. A lot of things are then learned, like touching a hot stove and from getting a formal education. For a machine to be artificially intelligent it would have to learn from its environment but also take formal instruction.…
Not sure what set off the down votes but we can teach a computer to recognize characters for application in OCR. We also learned those characters from being taught in school and reading bad handwriting. We teach computers the same way. How are they supposed to magically recognize them especially since they didn't invent whatever language it is?
Note that I'm referring to artificial general intelligence[0].
0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
Re: AI
#1910 points in 10 minutes. If multiple accounts weren't used, that must be a ready-worthy article.
As others have pointed out, the domain probably earned some points all by itself (and multiple submissions, which act as additional votes on the primary submission). It was also posted by a (popular) YC alum, which typically also accelerates upvotes.
> and multiple submissions, which act as additional votes on the primary submission
Didn't know that; thanks for pointing out.
Re: AI
#20Goodbye HN!
?