You’d be funnier if you quoted what you believe I said that’s incorrect, rather than making nebulous accusations because you didn’t understand or agree with my comment.
Go ahead, get scientific.
Go ahead, get scientific.
There is no scientific reason why global quantum communication means that an AI hits exponential growth. (If there is, you sure haven't supplied it! You've just asserted that it is so.)
I understand a number of readers aren’t familiar with QAI research though.
But that’s my point —
> Why should we get scientific? You didn't.
The person responding made a generic negative comment (as did you) due to not knowing the state of the art.
Incorrectly “correcting” people while yourself ignorant is prevented by giving people specific corrections: if you’d taken the time to tell me what you think I’m wrong about, you’d probably realize you don’t actually have a specific thing you think I’m wrong about — you just were surprised by my conclusion.
See here for more detailed arguments: