= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Richard_Loosemore comments on AI safety in the age of neural networks and Stanislaw Lem 1959 prediction - 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 (9)
The biggest problem here is that you start from the assumption that current neural net systems will eventually be made into AI systems with all the failings and limitations they have now. You extrapolate massively from the assumption.
But there is absolutely no reason to believe that the evolutionary changes to NN that are required in order to make them fully intelligent (AGI) will leave them with the all the same characteristics they have now. There will be SO MANY changes, that virtually nothing about the current systems will be true of those future systems.
Which renders your entire extrapolation moot.
Well, the critical point is whether NN are currently on a track to AGI. If they are not, then one cannot extrapolate anything. Compare: steam engine technology is also not going to eventually become AGI, so how would it look if someone wrote about the characteristics of steam engine technology and tried to predict the future of AGI based on those characteristics?
My own research (which started with NN, but tried to find ways to get it to be useful for AGI) is already well beyond the point where the statements you make about NN are of any relevance. Never mind what will be happening in 5, 10 or 20 years.
It looks like you are on track to hard takeoff, but from other domains I know that people tend to overestimate their achievements 10-100 times, so I have to be a little bit sceptical. NN is much closer to AGI than steam engines anyway.