> Rodney Brooks (approx.): No, human ingenuity is actually responsible for progress in AI. We can’t just solve problems by throwing more compute at them.
I find this amusing considering nature just kept throwing more time at the universe until humans emerged. That said, I don't think Brooks is wrong. I can't recall where in the lectures this is, but I remember Feynman going on a rant about how poorly designed the human eye was. Human ingenuity really is an essential piece of the puzzle, seeing as Nature, in and of itself, isn't very smart.
Your comment about the human eye made me curious about its design flaws. While I could not find anything about what Feynman said, this might be of interest to some.
We may not understand its logic, but that doesn't mean it's logic is beneath us. On a bad day for nature, it makes a two-headed cow. On a bad day for mankind's tech advancements, we get the means to wipe out all life on this planet. Seems mighty fucking counter-intuitive.
I find this amusing considering nature just kept throwing more time at the universe until humans emerged. That said, I don't think Brooks is wrong. I can't recall where in the lectures this is, but I remember Feynman going on a rant about how poorly designed the human eye was. Human ingenuity really is an essential piece of the puzzle, seeing as Nature, in and of itself, isn't very smart.