Hacker News Reader

I don't think there's not a universal theory of AI for lack of trying - it's just really hard and non obvious.

e.g. physics and chemistry took centuries of empirical fooling around to develop the highly predictive theories we have now.

I think one of the points of this article is that we need to think deeply about what our empirical foolings around are actually telling us.

View on HN

>> I don't think there's not a universal theory of AI for lack of trying - it's just really hard and non obvious.

I agree, but in that case most of the work done until now is inconsequential and a waste of everybody's time, and we should probably drop all of it and focus on setting down a solid theoretical foundation for future research. But there is lack of any incentives to do that and there are strong incentives to go on as we are now, from demonstration to demonstration of results and techniques that never get anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com