Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
It's nice to hear smart people talk about important topics in a down-to-earth fashion. This is why I upvoted.
AI
21–30 of 317 posts
Re: AI
#22I 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).…
> things aren't usually exactly based on models seen in nature
I prefer to view everything as nature and natural.
Re: AI
#23Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
What it adds is the simple point, "be optimistic about strong AI in the near future".
Re: AI
#24Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
Because it has an exceptionally short link title.
Re: AI
#25I 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).…
> things aren't usually exactly based on models seen in nature I prefer to view everything as nature and natural.
More specifically, I mean systems designed by biological evolution vs. systems designed by human thought.
Re: AI
#26> "the part of your brain that processes input from your ears is also capable of learning to process input from your eyes. If we can just figure out this one general-purpose algorithm, programs may be able to learn general-purpose things."
This is the Holy Grail of CS. I believe we're closer than most people would expect and I think it's going to be a race to the finish line.
Re: AI
#27Explain to me how a brain can evolve, and yet not understand how itself functions?
Re: AI
#28One thing that crosses my mind whenever I imagine creating a human level intelligence is that it takes humans YEARS of constant stimulation to begin to exhibit intelligent behavior... Sometimes I wonder if we'll have the algorithm may before we realize it...
Re: AI
#29Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
I upvoted because HN does not have a separate 'save' feature like Reddit, and upvoting is a quick and easy way to tag it as "read this eventually".
So I reflexively upvote anything that looks even vaguely interesting.
In this case, I did read the article, and would probably have upvoted it anyway. Why? Because it stands to serve as the seed of an interesting discussion.
Personally, I don't give a fuck if the article itself "adds anything" or not. Who cares about that? It's irrelevant. If the topic itself and/or the content of TFA are interesting enough that it gets a bunch of interesting HN readers talking and commenting and linking and sharing stuff, then it's a worthwhile article in my book. Not everything has to be an earth-shattering scientific breakthrough, that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, blah, blah, blah.
Re: AI
#30Explain to me how a brain can evolve, and yet not understand how itself functions?
Why should it?