Matt, > That is an interesting parallel to AGI. Not just because the payoff is > so huge, but also because (I believe) the level of difficulty is about > the same. A few people in each field believe that the problem can be > solved in one fell swoop by a stunning breakthrough. But the majority > of investment goes into making small incremental improvements, such as > a better way to automate a factory process, or a better way to treat a > disease. People are skeptical of a grand solution because if it were > simple then someone should have figured it out by now.
You are arguing against a straw man here -- a common habit of yours ;p Aubrey, whose link I posted, does not believe the problem of aging will be solved in one fell swoop by a sudden breakthrough. He believes that aging is a complex problem that will require multiple coordinated breakthroughs, and would like to see work funded on multiple relevant fronts: http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes The analogy with AGI is, roughly: -- You are arguing that the best approach to longevity research is "biopharma as usual" -- Aubrey is arguing that lots of funding specifically on the longevity problem, would work much better and faster and also -- You are arguing that the best approach to AGI is "narrow AI as usual" -- I am arguing that lots of funding specifically on AGI, would work much better and faster ... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
