Technology

35125 readers

202 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

195

Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable (www.ru.nl)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Will AI soon surpass the human brain? If you ask employees at OpenAI, Google DeepMind and other large tech companies, it is inevitable. However, researchers at Radboud University and other institutes show new proof that those claims are overblown and unlikely to ever come to fruition. Their findings are published in Computational Brain & Behavior today.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

There's a number of major flaws with it:

Assume the paper is completely true. It's just proved the algorithmic complexity of it, but so what? What if the general case is NP-hard, but not in the case that we care about? That's been true for other problems, why not this one?
It proves something in a model. So what? Prove that the result applies to the real world
Replace "human-like" with something trivial like "tree-like". The paper then proves that we'll never achieve tree-like intelligence?

IMO there's also flaws in the argument itself, but those are more relevant