Comment by 0c3ca83
5 hours ago
Microwaves still produce low quality food, TTS is still slow and works poorly in loud environments, and in many parts of the USA, walking is a hobby (unless you mean walking to your car). Brick and mortar stores are definitely struggling, and cash has virtually disappeared from many parts of the world.
Are you arguing that AI companies will fail to achieve their goals, and perpetually be worse than human thought? That's currently a pretty fair bet, but if you're wrong it's got some heavy consequences.
> Microwaves still produce low quality food,
OTOH, they reheat high quality food faster and with less overall energy use than any other method.
> Are you arguing that AI companies will fail to achieve their goals, and perpetually be worse than human thought? That's currently a pretty fair bet, but if you're wrong it's got some heavy consequences.
I think this is really the crux of the issue, and in general I find the whole debate frustrating because it completely hinges on this point, and both sides seem extremely sure of their viewpoint with little evidence/data to back it up.
That is, if current AI approaches eventually "hit a wall" with respect to their capabilities (and many have argued that recently, specifically in respect to OpenAI's math results), then humans will still have primacy and all this talk of "thinking will become a hobby" is ludicrous. If, on the other hand, current approaches can scale into RSI and super intelligence, then yes, the world is going to look very different and strange (and scary, IMO). But just because AI has been advancing at a breakneck speed since 2017 doesn't necessarily mean it will continue to do so - I like the analogy that exponential growth and an S-curve look the same in the beginning.
So I guess what I'm saying is that unless one has some specific evidence that we're in "exponential growth land" vs. "S-curve land", it doesn't really make sense to take sides, because everything depends on that point.