"when we're sitting around in 2030 with a million times more computing power at our fingertips than we have today, constructing a workable AI just isn't going to be that difficult of an engineering problem."
Sorry, but bruteforcing "creativity" is a p==np problem. If you have a proof of p==np then please submit it right away and collect your turing award.
"We already know the equations that we'd need to use do general intelligence, it's just that they're not computable with finite computer power, so we'd have to do some approximations, and at present it's not realistic because the approximation schemes we know of would work too slowly."
Unless there have been some MAJOR discovery within the past couple of days, this sentence is completely wrong. We don't have equations to build an AGI because if we did, we would already have a working AGI. If we had these so called equations, we would have a more fundamental understanding of humans, how they work, and how they "learn". I will now stop thinking about this ridiculous sentence before I get an aneurysm.
P.S. I would love it if you could prove me wrong with links to any academic papers.
P?=NP doesn't have anything to do with possibility - it has to do with feasibility. The point is, with sufficient hardware, we might be able to just do the NP problem.
Also, brute-forcing creativity is not P==NP. Brute-forcing is NP. If P=NP, then there's a way to do it without brute-forcing.
Sorry, but bruteforcing "creativity" is a p==np problem. If you have a proof of p==np then please submit it right away and collect your turing award.
"We already know the equations that we'd need to use do general intelligence, it's just that they're not computable with finite computer power, so we'd have to do some approximations, and at present it's not realistic because the approximation schemes we know of would work too slowly."
Unless there have been some MAJOR discovery within the past couple of days, this sentence is completely wrong. We don't have equations to build an AGI because if we did, we would already have a working AGI. If we had these so called equations, we would have a more fundamental understanding of humans, how they work, and how they "learn". I will now stop thinking about this ridiculous sentence before I get an aneurysm.
P.S. I would love it if you could prove me wrong with links to any academic papers.