Re:The Myth of a Superhuman AI
by TheOtherHobbes on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:57PM
(#14208618)
Invention proceeds because of game-changing insights.
Maxwell's equations were a game changer. So were Newton's laws. So were Relativity and QM.
Church-Turing was also a game changer. But I don't think there's been anything equivalent in computing since.
There's been a lot of application, but no game-changing deep theoretical insights.
Quantum computing may - should? - eventually throw up something new.
It's going to have to. If it doesn't I think we're going to be stuck with much less progress than we're expecting.
> Church-Turing was also a game changer. But I don't think there's been anything equivalent in computing since.
Quantity when the difference is large enough becomes quality. The 9 orders of magnitude or so that computers have gone through in storage capacity and speed definitely count as a game-changer.
Don't get me wrong I think it would be useful, just that the gap from human level AI to 1,000x human AI is simply not that huge. Let's say you moved someone from 2006 to 2016 or even from 1996. Yea sure there is real progress, but not really. We have better drugs in terms of AIDS for example, but we are worse off in terms of antibiotics. Game graphics have improved, but quake is from 1996 so we already had real 3D first person shooters and gameplay is not that different. Hell FTP is arguably worse. Further that's 20 years so we are talking literally millions-man years of effort and trillions of dollars worth of R&D for not much.
In terms of machines the SR-71 is still the fastest manned aircraft, no supersonic passenger aircraft. Tallest building is much taller, but lacks much space on the top floors making it more monument than utility as the sears tower has more useable space and a smaller footprint.