| You're sure about that? > [after discussing alphago] > Consider, for example, an old doctor; suppose they’ve seen twenty patients a day for 250 workdays over the course of twenty years. That works out to 100,000 patient visits, which seems to be roughly the number of people that interact with the UK’s NHS in 3.6 hours. If we train a machine learning doctor system on a year’s worth of NHS data, that would be the equivalent of fifty thousand years of medical experience, all gained over the course of a single year. Doctoring is just like playing Go, right? Just increase the CPU cycles on it and pack more data in there, it's more or less the same. You can make that assumption but I don't think it'd be based in fact or reality, because Go has far fewer inputs and states than treating humans does. And you don't get to test every hypothesis and then rewind either. Most answers there are like this, making unfounded conclusions into supposedly insightful rebuttals. Let's try another. > If we then take into account the fact that whenever one Einstein has an insight or learns a new skill, that can be rapidly transmitted to all other nodes, the fact that these Einsteins can spin up fully-trained forks whenever they acquire new computing power, and the fact that the Einsteins can use all of humanity’s accumulated knowledge as a starting point, the server farm begins to sound rather formidable. Or maybe they tell each other fake news so quickly they can't tell what's right and what's wrong, like we do whenever we find a more efficient way to communicate? Anyone can make unfounded assumptions about anything; I just did it. It's up to you to decide if you care whether these assumptions are based in reality or not. But if you consider yourself "rational", I think it'd be in your best interest to care. |