News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on When to assume neural networks can solve a problem. Parent comment

Re:When to assume neural networks can solve a problem by yters on Monday March 30, 2020 @12:38PM (#22729505)
That's been the general vibe the popular tech press has been spouting for awhile. That NNs are somehow a major step towards AGI, which'll 'capture the lightcone of the future' to quote Sam Altman.

At some point, we'll realize that AGI is the modern alchemy. Ironically, alchemy's penultimate goal was to construct a homoculus, which is essentially the goal of AGI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus#Alchemy

"The allegorical text suggests to the reader that the ultimate goal of alchemy is not chrysopoeia, but it is instead the artificial generation of humans."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:When to assume neural networks can solve a problem by criddell on Monday March 30, 2020 @02:06PM (#22730509)
Penultimate means the second last thing in a set. In the alphabet, 'y' is the penultimate letter.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:When to assume neural networks can solve a problem by yters on Monday March 30, 2020 @02:33PM (#22730781)
The last thing is 'profit'!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:When to assume neural networks can solve a problem by criddell on Monday March 30, 2020 @02:55PM (#22731034)
Ha! Makes sense then. :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:When to assume neural networks can solve a problem by malux85 on Monday March 30, 2020 @12:44PM (#22729590)
> That's been the general vibe the popular tech press has been spouting for awhile

This is such a vague generalisation, I cant do anything with it, except maybe how about "nullius in verba", on the word of noone, or "think for yourself"

[ Parent | on HN ]