Courts don’t work by the judge saying “well, you know, you could argue for anything, so what’s the point in having people present cases for one side or the other?” The point is that some cases end up stronger than other cases.
I think courts spend a fair bit of effort not just in evaluating strength of case, but standing and impact of the case. not “what else could you argue?”, but “why does this complaint matter, to whom?”
IMO, you’re absolutely right that there’s lots of pressures to make unrealistically short predictions for advances, and this causes a lot of punditry, and academia and industry, to … what? It’s annoying, but who is harmed and who has the ability to improve things?
Personally, I think timeline for AGI is a poorly-defined prediction—the big question is what capabilities satisfy the “AGI” definition. I think we WILL see more and more impressive performance in aspects of problem-solving and prediction that would have been classified as “intelligence” 50 years ago, but that we probably won’t credit with consciousness or generality.
I think courts spend a fair bit of effort not just in evaluating strength of case, but standing and impact of the case. not “what else could you argue?”, but “why does this complaint matter, to whom?”
IMO, you’re absolutely right that there’s lots of pressures to make unrealistically short predictions for advances, and this causes a lot of punditry, and academia and industry, to … what? It’s annoying, but who is harmed and who has the ability to improve things?
Personally, I think timeline for AGI is a poorly-defined prediction—the big question is what capabilities satisfy the “AGI” definition. I think we WILL see more and more impressive performance in aspects of problem-solving and prediction that would have been classified as “intelligence” 50 years ago, but that we probably won’t credit with consciousness or generality.