This was interesting, but the panel dates back from 2015. Before GPT, before AlphaGo, before Alpha0 and so on. I doubt they hold the same positions now !
This is why we really need some followups to the old surveys: they’re all from before the most striking developments, and approaching a decade out of date (assuming people formed opinions in the 2-3 years before the survey and are not even further out of date than that). Metaculus is great and all, but not exactly a random sampling of ML/DL/AI communities.
Yes, I thus found it especially striking that Kontsevich already thought HLAI was possible soon, apparently from pure reasoning alone. I also wouldn’t be too surprised if many of them held same or similar positions now, given how resistant many are to updating from existing progress to the possibility of further progress, although one might hope that elite mathematicians would be more rational. Incidentally, something a lot like Tao’s “brute force search fleshed out by human mathematicians” has happened in the last year.
Nobody will hold a position such as “I’m no expert, but isn’t the way the computer played chess not really very intelligent? It’s a huge combinatorial check.”—well, I hope so at least !
You might be surprised. (Not to say they’re totally wrong about current systems working differently from human brains, but they do show a definite lack of imagination about what further progress might bring...)
This was interesting, but the panel dates back from 2015. Before GPT, before AlphaGo, before Alpha0 and so on. I doubt they hold the same positions now !
This is why we really need some followups to the old surveys: they’re all from before the most striking developments, and approaching a decade out of date (assuming people formed opinions in the 2-3 years before the survey and are not even further out of date than that). Metaculus is great and all, but not exactly a random sampling of ML/DL/AI communities.
Yes, I thus found it especially striking that Kontsevich already thought HLAI was possible soon, apparently from pure reasoning alone. I also wouldn’t be too surprised if many of them held same or similar positions now, given how resistant many are to updating from existing progress to the possibility of further progress, although one might hope that elite mathematicians would be more rational. Incidentally, something a lot like Tao’s “brute force search fleshed out by human mathematicians” has happened in the last year.
Nobody will hold a position such as “I’m no expert, but isn’t the way the computer played chess not really very intelligent? It’s a huge combinatorial check.”—well, I hope so at least !
You might be surprised. (Not to say they’re totally wrong about current systems working differently from human brains, but they do show a definite lack of imagination about what further progress might bring...)