(playing Devil's Advocate here)
That doesn't even make sense. Correct way forward to what exactly? I guess if you assume that the only valid goal of AI research is to eventually achieve AGI then you might have a sort-of valid point. Except that nobody "knows" that deep learning isn't the way forward to AGI. Nobody "knows" that it is either.
But all of that said, current deep learning research has absolutely created systems that do amazing things and create tremendous value for society. So in what sense can we say that it "isn't the correct way forward"? Do you suggest abandoning DL completely? If so, in favor of what?
(OK "Devil's Advocate" portion over)
My own position has long been that "just deep learning" might be sufficient to achieve AGI if we eventually make networks that are big enough to support the right kind of emergent behavior. But I've also long been skeptical that this is the most direct or efficient path to AGI. I'm an advocate of hybrid symbolic/sub-symbolic systems that integrate deep learning with other AI strategies.
as soon as you say agi, you've lost the plot.
What plot? Would you care to elaborate?
Hard to imagine how that term could matter. It's just short-hand for some "thing" that people care to talk about. I'm not interested in quibbling over definitions or whatever. Nor am I interested in the kind of discussions that get all wrapped in what "general" means and reduce to arguing that even humans don't have "general intelligence", etc. To me, going down those rabbit-holes is really "losing the plot."
It's like when you're in a room where a bunch of people who can't name a medical school are trying to explain to each other what r0 means in a discussion that they believe is about COVID.
It's a red flag.
If AGI is the wrong term to use then either get over it, or explain what term they should use. Particularly when they ask you to explain why the term is wrong.
The idea of a self aware AI is a little difficult for most people to define. Even if the term AGI isn't accurate, don't you think it's important that people be able to discuss the topic? Especially when those people are quite explicitly trying to learn more about it.
Rational is another HPMoR red flag word.
All rational means is "follows a rationale," or a rules system. Astrology, anti-vaxxing, belief in Hermetic magic, and chemtrails, while all ridiculous and incorrect, are also fully rational. So is Dungeons and Dragons, or internalizing Star Trek lore.
.
"They're pretty unambiguously asking for information and trying to understand your viewpoint."
And I gave it, clearly and politely.
.
"If AGI is the wrong term to use"
No, it's not the wrong term to use. Swap it with a synonym and you have the same problem.
Look. What if I started rambling about fixing aging? Like, straight up immortality. Would you think I was a compelling medical light, or an outsider with dreams that don't make sense given today's realities?
Flying cars? Pocket fusion devices?
"bUt ThEyRe ScIeNtIfIcAlLy PoSsIbLe"
It doesn't matter if I'm "using the wrong term." I could call them aerial vehicles, floating carriages, hover-Datsuns, whatever you want.
The problem is the idea. Anyone who's plying these ideas has completely missed the boat, and doesn't recognize that they're reciting bad science fiction.
.
"The idea of a self aware AI is a little difficult for most people to define"
I see you're still missing the boat.
.
"don't you think it's important that people be able to discuss the topic?"
It is approximately as important as discussing vampire repellant strategies.
I think there's the much more defensible position that current techniques can't scale up to general artificial intelligence. That's pretty clear because we've already had to change details of model architecture a lot to get the models to where they are now
And a lot of other people listened to the vocal "experts" and assumed that they must know what they're talking about.
Do you have a reference for this? Itβs not my experience.