Unfortunately, I’m not keeping track of what’s ‘thus far’ and not, which is kind of what I just said. Unless you mean ‘thus far’ as in up to the end of 2012, in which case… Hmm. I also haven’t been keeping track of where these arguments are stored in general.
As far as I’m concerned, we have enough obvious cognitive time-wasting—and worse—going on, that the so-called ‘low-hanging fruit’ would be enough to take AI way beyond us, even in the absence of colossal speedups (though that would very likely occur soon) or finding a P solution to NP-complete problems or molecular nanotech (and I’m not ruling those out). We would soon be so useless that trade is not something we could count on to save us.
What do you think is the strongest presentation of the argument thus far?
Unfortunately, I’m not keeping track of what’s ‘thus far’ and not, which is kind of what I just said. Unless you mean ‘thus far’ as in up to the end of 2012, in which case… Hmm. I also haven’t been keeping track of where these arguments are stored in general.
As far as I’m concerned, we have enough obvious cognitive time-wasting—and worse—going on, that the so-called ‘low-hanging fruit’ would be enough to take AI way beyond us, even in the absence of colossal speedups (though that would very likely occur soon) or finding a P solution to NP-complete problems or molecular nanotech (and I’m not ruling those out). We would soon be so useless that trade is not something we could count on to save us.