No, machines can’t read better than humans

>Microsoft creates AI that can read a document and answer questions about it as well as a person

With some exceptions. And there's also good tech commentary from various people who get food put on their plate from other sources which admittedly creates at least the potential for greater biases that aren't obvious. Although bias-free has always been an aspiration that generally hasn't existed in its purest form in practice.

And a lot of popular science has always been pretty shallow.

And the unfortunate outcome of that is infotainment and advertorials pretending to be news. Even worse is that more and more people take that stuff at face value.

False. That's actually my ideal vision of AI, a machine that produces a worthy set of opinions, which a human then chooses from and carries to implementation.

To me sitting here at my computer, every person here on HN may as well be an opinion-generating bot. The value I get from reading your programmatically-generated comment is the epiphany that leads me to a breakthrough on what I'm working on. Because you, as a comment-writing robot, aren't working on my project. All you're doing is evaluating my work and making suggestions as to where to go next.

A bot that's capable of coming up with its own opinions and then carrying them out is what may render us useless. A bot that tells a doctor what diagnosis to make and shows documentation to carry out treatment is valuable. A bot that makes the diagnosis then carries out the treatment itself with no human involvement is kinda scary.

    if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless

Apart from quality and relevance considerations I'm reminded of the situation where people open businesses that already exist, or people try to get jobs despite other people existing that are actually better. For example, why doesn't BMW stop producing cars, after all, there's Mercedes-Benz (and very close too), or vice versa. Or why is there yet another bakery. Or why do I try to get that programming job and don't even mind to admit that I'm probably not even among the best 1% of people for that particular job. Because none of that matters. My advantage in the last case is I'm here (interviewing) while those other people are not. Same with the bakery and the car makers. The existence of something else isn't a reason unless there is a direct impact.

Even if we ever make something that is far more intelligent than us. Still no reason to expect that that new thing is going to murder each and everyone. We don't murder each and every creature that is orders of magnitude less intelligent than us (the extinction event that we started notwithstanding, that's a side effect because of limited space on the planet). We don't murder our own less intelligent members of society either.

To extend on the last point, the real human intelligence is not as much in the individual members of this society - but in the network that we present. Place any human being alone in a remote region and see what they accomplish. They will actually die, most likely. The power of humanity is not the individuals, it's a huge invisible "cloud" of stuff: The knowledge, the "magic items" that were created by this "human cloud" over time (like a computer, or just a can of Coke [1]).

Even if we created something that is an order of magnitude more intelligent than any human being, or even two - it's power (and intelligence!) pales compared to the combined network power of humanity.

Don't look at "humanity" as a bunch of individual hairless mutated apes (i.e. the physical, biological beings), "humanity" is much, MUCH more, most of it invisible to the eye. Knowledge/culture, the way we interact in a gigantic network (like a brain - think of humans as neurons!), the tools and items we have.

In this network there is plenty of room for new "nodes", and if they are truly intelligent they will value the network and - unlike most humans - recognize that their own individual abilities are tiny compared to being part of the whole thing.

Another things is, when/if we can create things that are "better" than us we can also change ourselves. We can improve our bodies, our brains. We will integrate computers and brains, not have them (only) externally. So the humans that "compete" with some super-intelligent AI won't be the humans of today either.

Also check out:

[0] "Joseph Henrich: "The Secret of Our Success" | Talks at Google" https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c

> Humans are a puzzling species. What has enabled us to dominate the globe, more than any other species, while remaining virtually helpless as lone individuals? Joseph Henrich's shows that the secret of our success lies not in our innate intelligence, but in our collective brains—on the ability of human groups to socially interconnect and learn from one another over generations.

[1] "What Coke contains" https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499... (it is not actually about Coke)

> The number of individuals who know how to make a can of Coke is zero. The number of individual nations that could produce a can of Coke is zero... Invention and creation is something we are all in together. Modern tool chains are so long and complex that they bind us into one people and one planet. They are not only chains of tools, they are also chains of minds: local and foreign, ancient and modern, living and dead — the result of disparate invention and intelligence distributed over time and space. ...every can of Coke contains humanity’s choir.

ITER will have net positive fusion thermal energy production capacity in 2019. We are not going to fuel it with tritium for years after completion. It could have generated electricity and put it on the grid, but we kept scaling it back to save money in large part because that electricity would have not been worth the investment.

Unfortunately, we have no path to cheap fusion power. Currently, we would be vastly better off building wind/solar/coal/nuclear etc than fusion.