I'm afraid you're the one who's missing the point. People in the 1920's weren't so used to eating something and making diseases go away. Diseases were accepted as a fact of life (or rather death), and if you had told someone around that time that within a few decades they'd be able to swallow a little pill and cure most of the deadliest diseases of that time, they'd have laughed at your face and considered you a hopeless optimist.
Imagine someone came up to you today and suggested that in 20 years' time you can get a jab that will protect you from cancer, aids, degenerative diseases, heart disease, cholesterol problems, baldness, and erectile dysfunction all at once - you'd laugh at them and call them a spammer. Yet the biotech and nanotech revolutions are just around the corner and who knows, they might bring just that, though anyone who believes that they will is indeed very optimistic.
AI researchers might be working on sub-problems, but who's to say that they won't stumble on a bigger solution while working on those sub problems? And, again, you're missing the point even more by failing to see that AI is not the only path to a singularity. Enhancing human intelligence can be just as effective. If we create "trans-humans" who are vastly more intelligent than we are, we still get a singularity. We can do that biologically, cybernetically... etc.
Are you not reading what I wrote? You yourself just suggested a method of curing all those things you wrote. So obviously it's possible to imagine them. You don't know how exactly, but you have a starting point: inject some sort of protective something that will do it.
Why do you think I would laugh at them? It seems quite plausible to me.
You are totally wrong about people in 1920. People 2000 years ago even were eating various plants for their medicinal effect. Some of the books from that time (or a little later) still exist! And some of them even work (willow bark for pain for example).
That does not exist with AI. Give me any idea at all of a programming method (besides random permutation) that will, eventually, even with a lot of work, result in AI.
You don't realize just how much harder creating creativity is from anything else humanity has ever done. Create a mechanism that will create something new that has never existed before? (And is not simply a reshuffling of other things.) Computers can not do that, and I don't think will ever be able to do that. (Again, except by trying everything randomly.) Even humans rarely do that - and the ones that do have no idea how they do it, so what makes you think we can program such a thing?
Read some quotes from Mark Kac about magician genius and you'll start to understand the problem. No one has any idea how they make their leaps. A regular genius simply can not do what they do. So why do you think we can program a computer to do such a thing, when we can not even understand how it's done in the first place?
AI is not coming. And on top of all that computing speed has hit a wall. The entire premise depends on computers getting faster and faster. They aren't right now. Intel can not make CPU's run any faster than they are right now. Instead they are adding cores.
Now I expect that to be solved at some point, but it means the exponential growth curve broke. And that means no more singularity.
That's something I don't see much talk of. But it's over, there is no more exponential growth in computing speed.
Comments
I'm afraid you're the one who's missing the point. People in the 1920's weren't so used to eating something and making diseases go away. Diseases were accepted as a fact of life (or rather death), and if you had told someone around that time that within a few decades they'd be able to swallow a little pill and cure most of the deadliest diseases of that time, they'd have laughed at your face and considered you a hopeless optimist.
Imagine someone came up to you today and suggested that in 20 years' time you can get a jab that will protect you from cancer, aids, degenerative diseases, heart disease, cholesterol problems, baldness, and erectile dysfunction all at once - you'd laugh at them and call them a spammer. Yet the biotech and nanotech revolutions are just around the corner and who knows, they might bring just that, though anyone who believes that they will is indeed very optimistic.
AI researchers might be working on sub-problems, but who's to say that they won't stumble on a bigger solution while working on those sub problems? And, again, you're missing the point even more by failing to see that AI is not the only path to a singularity. Enhancing human intelligence can be just as effective. If we create "trans-humans" who are vastly more intelligent than we are, we still get a singularity. We can do that biologically, cybernetically... etc.
Are you not reading what I wrote? You yourself just suggested a method of curing all those things you wrote. So obviously it's possible to imagine them. You don't know how exactly, but you have a starting point: inject some sort of protective something that will do it.
Why do you think I would laugh at them? It seems quite plausible to me.
You are totally wrong about people in 1920. People 2000 years ago even were eating various plants for their medicinal effect. Some of the books from that time (or a little later) still exist! And some of them even work (willow bark for pain for example).
That does not exist with AI. Give me any idea at all of a programming method (besides random permutation) that will, eventually, even with a lot of work, result in AI.
You don't realize just how much harder creating creativity is from anything else humanity has ever done. Create a mechanism that will create something new that has never existed before? (And is not simply a reshuffling of other things.) Computers can not do that, and I don't think will ever be able to do that. (Again, except by trying everything randomly.) Even humans rarely do that - and the ones that do have no idea how they do it, so what makes you think we can program such a thing?
Read some quotes from Mark Kac about magician genius and you'll start to understand the problem. No one has any idea how they make their leaps. A regular genius simply can not do what they do. So why do you think we can program a computer to do such a thing, when we can not even understand how it's done in the first place?
AI is not coming. And on top of all that computing speed has hit a wall. The entire premise depends on computers getting faster and faster. They aren't right now. Intel can not make CPU's run any faster than they are right now. Instead they are adding cores.
Now I expect that to be solved at some point, but it means the exponential growth curve broke. And that means no more singularity.
That's something I don't see much talk of. But it's over, there is no more exponential growth in computing speed.