Comment author: Dustin 05 June 2014 09:22:35PM 17 points [-]
  1. Your phrasing was pseudo-mystical.
  2. You used non-standard meanings for words.
  3. It was a bunch of assertions, without a meaningful way to springboard into more discussion.
  4. My first thought was "why doesn't this person recognize that something so out of the ordinary requires a lot more explication?"
  5. I had to think much more than should have been necessary to even begin to grasp what you could even possibly have meant by saying things like "Software is becoming the new System".

Basically, it came across as a very low-effort post that seemed explicitly designed to create poor quality discussion.

Comment author: AndyWood 06 June 2014 10:55:14AM -2 points [-]

Ordinary for what? Ordinary for this small community? It's a big world out there.

Comment author: Gavin 05 June 2014 06:09:37PM *  3 points [-]

I didn't downvote it, and was disappointed when I looked at it and it appear to have been downvoted simply for being wrong. My impression at the time was that the author was thinking sloppily, and was insisting on continuing the same pattern of thought despite corrective comments.

It appears to have been removed, so I can't go back and check my assumptions.

In my view, the only reason for downvoting something so far would be if it were completely off topic or the poster were aggressively insulting other users.

Comment author: AndyWood 06 June 2014 10:36:14AM 1 point [-]

Thank you, Gavin

In response to comment by [deleted] on AI is Software is AI
Comment author: AndyWood 04 June 2014 03:21:41AM -1 points [-]

This at least is empirical.

Comment author: AndyWood 06 June 2014 10:07:25AM 1 point [-]

Ok, fellas, this is getting ridiculous. I've lost all the karma I accumulated for years in this community, over 3 simple lines. Something doesn't add up

Comment author: DanielLC 05 June 2014 07:29:21PM 2 points [-]

Single-use software has its place, but it's not exactly singularity-inducing. Each piece of software can only do one thing. If you had a piece of software that could do anything, then you program that one piece of software and you and everyone else is set until the heat death of the universe.

Also, why bother with the word AI? Even if AGI isn't its own cluster in thingspace, we already have the word "software". Why replace it?

Comment author: AndyWood 06 June 2014 09:45:54AM *  0 points [-]

The more different subjects, venues, and experiences in the world that you open your eyes to, the more you will see that we are in a smooth, soft takeoff. Now.

AI is Software is AI

-42 AndyWood 05 June 2014 06:15PM

Turing's Test is from 1950. We don't judge dogs only by how human they are. Judging software by a human ideal is like a species bias.

Software is the new System. It errs. Some errors are jokes (witness funny auto-correct). Driver-less cars don't crash like we do. Maybe a few will.

These processes are our partners now (Siri). Whether a singleton evolves rapidly, software evolves continuously, now.

 

Crocker's Rules

In response to AI is Software is AI
Comment author: ChristianKl 04 June 2014 12:19:32PM 3 points [-]

If you look at the way MIRI defines AGI you won't find it mentioning the turing test as the primary criteria.

As far as addressing the issue of the Turing test Bruce Sterling's article http://www.wired.com/2012/06/turing-centenary-speech-new-aesthetic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+wiredbeyond+%2528Blog+-+Beyond+the+Beyond%252FSterling%2529 is a lot better and a lot more fun.

Comment author: AndyWood 05 June 2014 05:51:48PM 2 points [-]

Thank you, ChristianKI

Curiosity: Why did you mega-downvote "AI is Software" ?

2 AndyWood 05 June 2014 05:50PM

I've never experienced anything like it before on LessWrong. Would you care to re-read the post, and offer your feedback?

Comment author: DanielLC 04 June 2014 10:16:33PM 2 points [-]

I don't understand your question. Are you saying that my comment wasn't about AIs being like humans, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if software is only able to solve a set of problems that it wasn't designed for?

Comment author: AndyWood 05 June 2014 05:45:05PM -1 points [-]

I am suggesting your comment implied to me you still compare AIs with humans a bit too much. We work to make software able to solve the set of problems it was designed for. This applies for Hello World, and for Singleton.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 June 2014 08:42:54AM 0 points [-]

Do explain, mwengler: Are you arguing that we should upvote Andy's claim that bugs are supposedly intentional jokes played on us by a playfully childlike software?

If you believe I'm misconstruing/misinterpreting what Andy has been saying, I'll show you the original text of this post of his, before he edited it.

Comment author: AndyWood 05 June 2014 05:42:09PM 0 points [-]

ArisKatsaris, I did not say "intentional", and if I did, I would not mean it in quite the way you do. But I would mean it in an analogous way to our intentionality. Why did you insert this word?

In response to AI is Software is AI
Comment author: AndyWood 05 June 2014 05:33:40PM *  -1 points [-]

This is another call for respectful dialog on the topic. Takers?

A brief word on credentials. I am a 23/24-year "veteran" of the software industry. I have worked on many types of software at Microsoft, and on simulation and optimization at Electronic Arts. I am an information scientist first, and an "armchair" theoretical physicist (with a pet TOE), and a hands-on consciousness researcher.

Thank you for the civil dialog.

View more: Next