You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jacob_cannell comments on [Link] AlphaGo: Mastering the ancient game of Go with Machine Learning - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: ESRogs 27 January 2016 09:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (122)

Comments (122)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2016 08:48:22PM 3 points [-]

Whereas an outside could have just looked at the general trend and predicted a doubling every 18 months, and they would have been accurate for at least 50 years.

I'm not buying this.

There are tons of cases where people look at the current trend and predict it will continue unabated into the future. Occasionally they turn out to be right, mostly they turn out to be wrong. In retrospect it's easy to pick "winners", but do you have any reason to believe it was more than a random stab in the dark which got lucky?

Comment author: jacob_cannell 29 January 2016 11:40:51PM 4 points [-]

If you were trying to predict the future of flight in 1900, you'd do pretty terrible by surveying experts. You would do far better by taking a Kurzweil style approach where you put combustion engine performance on a chart and compared it to estimates of the power/weight ratios required for flight.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit