Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

The tragedy is that GOFAI did all these things as built-ins. Procedural expert systems have been doing introspection, backtracing, declaring confidence intervals etc since the 1960s. Layering "assurance" on top of inherently jittery statistical/stochastic and neural systems seems to misunderstand how these models evolved, where they come from and why there are alternatives.

View on HN

While horses don't consume fossil fuels, they also don't solve the problem of transoceanic flight. Yet for some reason every discussion of airplane design ends up dominated by a vocal contingent of buggy whip salesmen.

Turns out, we don't need transoceanic flight; we can put horses on stirrups, and have an elegant system of clockwork to allow them to power a boat.

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-past...

Carmack or someone said that all of the pieces needed for AGI are already solved, it's just a matter of someone scouring through 40+ years of AI research and finding the right papers/techniques and putting the concepts together

I'm not entirely sure we have even identified all the problems of AGI yet, if so would be interested to see that list?

And while airplanes don't solve the "problem" of human connectedness, it's inevitably a conversation led by advocates of transoceanic flight still hankering for flying cars and living in the Jetsons world of the 1950s futurists - long after transoceanic flight has become an actual problem.

Same thing. Different parochial perspective.

And people who work on transoceanic flights advertise unicorns to people.

Another tragedy, GOFAI hasn’t made a dent on any of these problems for a very long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com