Yes, I see that now. Still it is an important open question. And the whole raison d'etre of MIRI, FAI and so on hangs in this.
If they (authors) are basically right, then it's a game changer. I think, they are.
If they (authors) are basically right, then it's a game changer.
This is true of all new ideas about A(G)I, including past ones that fizzled, which is all of them so far. One might conclude that this one is likely to fizzle, except that there are anthropic issues about alternate histories in which one of these advances foomed instead of fizzling. I am not sure how to handle that.
Is there any reason to think that this new idea has something that all previous ideas lacked?
A deeply satisfying view on intelligence here:
http://www.insidescience.org/content/physicist-proposes-new-way-think-about-intelligence/987/