| ▲ | andrepd 5 days ago |
| >The skill of these only improve Citation effing needed. It's taken as an axiom that these systems will keep on improving, even though there's no indication that this is the case. |
|
| ▲ | tomhow 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Citation effing needed Please avoid internet tropes and fulmination on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html |
|
| ▲ | kaonwarb 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most technological capabilities improve relatively monotonically, albeit at highly varying paces. I believe it's a reasonable position to take as the default condition, and burden of proof to the contrary lies on the challenger. |
| |
| ▲ | lll-o-lll 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You are implying linear improvement, which is patently false. The curve bends over. | | |
| ▲ | kaonwarb 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Linear? Not at all; generally increasing over time, but hardly consistently. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Humans can keep improving, we take that as granted, so there is at least one solution to the problem of general intelligence. Now, robots can be far more precise than humans, in fact, assisted surgeries are becoming far more common, where robots accept large movements and scale them down to far smaller ones, improving the surgeon’s precision. My axiom is that there is nothing inherently special about humans that can’t be replicated. It follows then that something that can bypass our own mechanical limitations and can keep improving will exceed us. |
|
| ▲ | ACCount36 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | tomhow 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Please don't comment like this on HN. We need you to observe the guidelines, particularly these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer... Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | |
| ▲ | macintux 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd recommend reviewing the site guidelines. HN strives for more courteous discussions than you seem to embrace. | |
| ▲ | andrepd 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Are you completely fucking unaware? Do you not realize what kind of world are you living in? Sure showed me. Here, some starting material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate, I will when I have some time. | | |
| ▲ | ACCount36 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You can't comment like this on HN and we have to ban accounts that do it repeatedly. This style of commenting is not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. HN is only a place where people want to participate because other people make an effort to keep the standards up. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. |
|
|
|
