That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive
changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be
predicted.  Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from
engineering can be rapid, or can be slow, but it usually moves forward.  I
think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is
presently missing.  I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that
seminal invention that makes AI practical.

I took a class in AI and Expert Systems about 25 years ago.  I was enthused
about the languages of AI and the progress in Expert Systems.  The nasty
secret I learned was that the most successful Expert System was written in
FORTRAN!  It burst my bubble.  It was a million IF-THEN-ELSE statements.
AI needs a breakthrough that will allow machines to read and understand
books and to then incorporate that knowledge as someone's "opinion" of
reality.  At some point the system will need an opinion evaluator to know
which opinion to use to assemble a coherent reality.  I think it is a field
still waiting on multiple inventions whose timing is not predictable.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:

> Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons results
> ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable product?
>
>
>
> Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
> generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>

Reply via email to