Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3620192" data-attributes="member: 4937">You may not paraphrase if you are not going to do so charitably.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />First, I disagree that the presence of a variaty of very closely related species occuring in almost the exact same time period with a recent common ancestor contitutes a sample size of more than one.&nbsp; And on an unrelated point, its not at all clear from the archaelogical record why Homo Neanderthalensis disappeared.&nbsp; And you don't have any evidence for that.&nbsp; As the old engineering maxim goes, &quot;If the probability of something isn't practically one, then it's damn close to zero.&quot;&nbsp; The claim that any self-modifying system would eventually achieve sentience is so very 'state of the art' of AI research for the 1950's.&nbsp; I would think we were largely no longer so niave about the complexity of intelligence.&nbsp; It's kinda similar to the claim that the contents of cells was probably simple, and hense it ought to be easy to jump start them back to life by applying just a bit of electricity (whoops, better microscopes killed that idea), or that the contents of cellular nuclei was probably simple (whoops, our understanding of DNA killed that idea).&nbsp;&nbsp; The more we study intelligence the more its unreasonable to think something magical is going to happen, and then suddenly sentient life, or that if we just let the code evolve long enough that we'd get strong AI in the lifetime of the researcher (rather than maybe in the lifetime of the universe, and then again maybe not).Perhaps we should hand out thread participation trophies?&nbsp; Weeee!&nbsp; Everyone is a winner!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3620192, member: 4937"] You may not paraphrase if you are not going to do so charitably. :( First, I disagree that the presence of a variaty of very closely related species occuring in almost the exact same time period with a recent common ancestor contitutes a sample size of more than one. And on an unrelated point, its not at all clear from the archaelogical record why Homo Neanderthalensis disappeared. And you don't have any evidence for that. As the old engineering maxim goes, "If the probability of something isn't practically one, then it's damn close to zero." The claim that any self-modifying system would eventually achieve sentience is so very 'state of the art' of AI research for the 1950's. I would think we were largely no longer so niave about the complexity of intelligence. It's kinda similar to the claim that the contents of cells was probably simple, and hense it ought to be easy to jump start them back to life by applying just a bit of electricity (whoops, better microscopes killed that idea), or that the contents of cellular nuclei was probably simple (whoops, our understanding of DNA killed that idea). The more we study intelligence the more its unreasonable to think something magical is going to happen, and then suddenly sentient life, or that if we just let the code evolve long enough that we'd get strong AI in the lifetime of the researcher (rather than maybe in the lifetime of the universe, and then again maybe not). Perhaps we should hand out thread participation trophies? Weeee! Everyone is a winner! [/QUOTE]

Verification