Re: “”Hard takeoff” means, IMHO, FOOM in less than 6 months.”
Nobody ever specifies when the clock is going to start ticking. We already have speech recognition, search oracles, stockmarket wizards, and industrial automation on a massive scale. Machine intelligence has been under construction for at least 60 years—and machines have been taking people’s jobs for over 100 years.
If your clock isn’t ticking by now, then what exactly are you waiting for?
Valid point. I spoke loosely. I was referring to the EY—RH debate, in which “6 months” usually meant 6 months from proof-of-concept, or else from not being able to stay under the radar, to FOOM.
Well, it’s not just you at fault. Nobody who advocates the idea that some future period of change is rapid ever seems to pin down what they mean to the point where their view is falsifiable. People need to say when they are starting and stopping their clocks—or else they might just as well be mumbling mystical incantations.
Explosive increases in information technology are happening NOW.
If you are looking for an information technology explosion, then THIS IS IT.
How do you measure the “explosiveness” of an explosion? By measuring the base of its exponential growth? If so, I would classify the hypothesis that the explosion will get “more explosive” as a somewhat speculative one. The growth in CPU clock rates has already run out of steam. The explosion may well get faster in some areas—but getting more “explosive” has got to be different from that.
Today, information technology is exploding in the same sense that the nucleii in a nuclear bomb are exploding—by exhibiting exponential growth processes. The explosion is already happening. How fast it is happening is really another issue.
Re: “”Hard takeoff” means, IMHO, FOOM in less than 6 months.”
Nobody ever specifies when the clock is going to start ticking. We already have speech recognition, search oracles, stockmarket wizards, and industrial automation on a massive scale. Machine intelligence has been under construction for at least 60 years—and machines have been taking people’s jobs for over 100 years.
If your clock isn’t ticking by now, then what exactly are you waiting for?
Valid point. I spoke loosely. I was referring to the EY—RH debate, in which “6 months” usually meant 6 months from proof-of-concept, or else from not being able to stay under the radar, to FOOM.
Well, it’s not just you at fault. Nobody who advocates the idea that some future period of change is rapid ever seems to pin down what they mean to the point where their view is falsifiable. People need to say when they are starting and stopping their clocks—or else they might just as well be mumbling mystical incantations.
Explosive increases in information technology are happening NOW.
If you are looking for an information technology explosion, then THIS IS IT.
But not as explosive as it will (may) be in the future; this is what has people worried.
How do you measure the “explosiveness” of an explosion? By measuring the base of its exponential growth? If so, I would classify the hypothesis that the explosion will get “more explosive” as a somewhat speculative one. The growth in CPU clock rates has already run out of steam. The explosion may well get faster in some areas—but getting more “explosive” has got to be different from that.
Today, information technology is exploding in the same sense that the nucleii in a nuclear bomb are exploding—by exhibiting exponential growth processes. The explosion is already happening. How fast it is happening is really another issue.