= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (264)
See, this is the sort of response I would expect: a possible bias is identified, some basic data is collected which suggests that it's plausible, and then we begin a more thorough inspection. Complete silence, though, was not.
Turing would be hard to do. He predicts in 1950 a machine could pass his test 70% of the time in another 50 years (2000; Turing was born 1912, so he would've been 88), and that this would be as good as a real mind. But is this a date for the Singularity or a genuine consciousness?
Yes, I considered that ambiguity, and certainly you couldn't send him a survey. But it gives a lower bound, and Turing does talk about machines equaling or exceeding human capacities across the board.
Hm. Would it be justifiable to extrapolate Turing's predictions? Because we know that he was off by at least a decade on just the AI; presumably any Singularity would be have to be that much or more.