vendor a: selling apples on wood carts isn’t making as much money as I hoped.
vendor b: maybe we should sell nonapples on nonwood carts.
a: that’s just silly. Which convinces me that we should continue selling non-nonapples on non-nonwood.
… ie, the opposite of stupidity is rarely intelligence, but the opposite of the opposite of stupidity never is.
Human intelligence arose out of a neurological Turing tarpit. It is reasonable to imagine that designing intelligence in less time will take tricks—ones which Mother Nature didn’t use—to get out of the tarpit. It is not reasonable to imagine that there is one magic trick which gets us all the way there. So saying “my trick is better than your trick” is interesting, but don’t mean that the final answer won’t need both or neither.
In fact, as soon as it comes to actual wagon design, “nonwood” can be a useful step. If you are building wagons, and there are 5 wagon stores in town, one of which is the “nonwood” store and has the generally lowest-quality—but still functioning—wagons, and you only have time to visit 2 stores for inspiration, which would you visit? Would you be happy to have the nonwood designs all in one store, or would you rather use some classification system (number of spokes) which split them across several stores? (That is, until metal is the new wood.) Any actual “nonwood” wagon is in fact made of something.
But there isn’t a nonwood store. There is an iron store, and a corn store, and a water store. All these are nonwood, but only one of them is going to make much of a wagon.
I was talking about going to the nonwood-wagon store (ie, looking at nontraditional AI projects), not about going to the nonwood store (ie, writing your AI from scratch in machine code).
vendor a: selling apples on wood carts isn’t making as much money as I hoped.
vendor b: maybe we should sell nonapples on nonwood carts.
a: that’s just silly. Which convinces me that we should continue selling non-nonapples on non-nonwood.
… ie, the opposite of stupidity is rarely intelligence, but the opposite of the opposite of stupidity never is.
Human intelligence arose out of a neurological Turing tarpit. It is reasonable to imagine that designing intelligence in less time will take tricks—ones which Mother Nature didn’t use—to get out of the tarpit. It is not reasonable to imagine that there is one magic trick which gets us all the way there. So saying “my trick is better than your trick” is interesting, but don’t mean that the final answer won’t need both or neither.
In fact, as soon as it comes to actual wagon design, “nonwood” can be a useful step. If you are building wagons, and there are 5 wagon stores in town, one of which is the “nonwood” store and has the generally lowest-quality—but still functioning—wagons, and you only have time to visit 2 stores for inspiration, which would you visit? Would you be happy to have the nonwood designs all in one store, or would you rather use some classification system (number of spokes) which split them across several stores? (That is, until metal is the new wood.) Any actual “nonwood” wagon is in fact made of something.
But there isn’t a nonwood store. There is an iron store, and a corn store, and a water store. All these are nonwood, but only one of them is going to make much of a wagon.
I was talking about going to the nonwood-wagon store (ie, looking at nontraditional AI projects), not about going to the nonwood store (ie, writing your AI from scratch in machine code).