Terminus,
First, I know english too well; I wanted to add smileys to my 'i cant take it anymore' but must have forgotten to.
No, you know English fairly well, but not "too well" because that expression is invalid
Second, stick this argumentum ad ignorantiam...
Have You seen the episode of south park about underpant gnomes? They were a bunch of small creatures, who had an undergound HQ, where they collected underpants stolen from the town's people. They did it all, to follow their working plan, which follows:
1. Collect underpants.
2. ...?
3. World domination.
Ingenious AI scientist, are at the point 1.
Are you including neuroscientis here? Because I am defending their work much more than I am defending AI work...
Neuroscientist are bit more far than the "collect underpants" step; you don't seem too fond of their work, to be fair.
Obviously, talking about NN, both fields neuroscience and AI, overlap.
How can You say that you don't need to understand something, to create a working copy of it? That's the argument of ignorance.
Hardly, because I have evidence and I have presented some of it to you.
You can reject my arguments or my evidence, but you can't accuse me of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The hipocampus prosthesis scientists claims exactly what I claimed: copying the function without knowing the meaning, the "why it works". Why don't you try to read the article and come back later?
Btw, copying a existing technology found in nature without understanding it's inner workings it's one of the oldest and most popular sources of technology known by mankind. Or do you think all humans had any idea about oxygen when they discovered fire?
It's a brutally simple matter. We thing, that there is a stage in point 2. which eiher is very difficuld to overcome, or will take years to break by patient programming, or won't be defeated at all; whereas You suggest that it is just a matter of time.
Yes and I presented my argument in a coherent manner. Look at the premises, accept or reject it, but don't talk as if I am inventing my own reality.
All the premises are well supported in the scientific community and have plenty of evidence behind.
You are not able to convince us, as well we aren't able to convince You. It's the same vacuum of arguments on the both sides.
I disagree; the arguments you have presented lack any power of prediction.
You seem to forget we are talking about prognosys, predictions based on reality. Prognosys are based of trends, evidence, and succesful theories. Your predictions of the imposibility of strong AI lacks all 3 components!
