[ksdale]

I think it's plausible that many technological advances follow a similar. Something like the steam engine is a step-improvement, but many of the subsequent improvements are basically the obvious next step, implemented once steel is strong enough, or machining precise enough, or fuel is refined enough. How many times has the world changed qualitatively, simply in the pursuit of making things quantitatively bigger or faster or stronger?

I can certainly see how it could be considered disappointing that pure intellect and creativity doesn't always win out, but I, personally, don't think it's bitter.

I also have a pet theory that the first AGI will actually be 10,000 very simple algorithms/sensors/APIs duct-taped together running on ridiculously powerful equipment rather than any sort of elegant Theory of Everything, and this wild conjecture may make me less likely to think this a bitter lesson...

[StevenWaterman]

I agree, the first AGI probably will be bodget together with loads of expert input. However, that's not evidence against the bitter lesson.

The first of anything is usually made with the help of experts, but they're quickly overtaken by general methods that lever additional computation

[ksdale]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the bitter lesson is wrong, just that it's not bitter, it's actually how a whole bunch of stuff progresses.

[StevenWaterman]

Makes sense!