Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ypeterholmes 459 days ago
Hey look, the goalposts are being moved again. This time it's from top end researcher to generational genius. Question: what evidence is there that this benchmark will not be reached also? Time and again these essays make the mistake of assuming AI is a static thing, and refuse to acknowledge the inexorable march forward we are witnessing. As humans, we cling to our own fragile superiority. Even on this thread- I thought Hinton said the world would be transformed by now. That's NOT what was claimed. We are like three years in! Posts like this will be laughable in 10 years.
1 comments
nl 459 days ago
> Hey look, the goalposts are being moved again.

Typically the "moving goalpost" posts are "we don't have AI because ....". That's not what this post is doing - it's pointing out a genuine weakness and a way forward.

link
ypeterholmes 459 days ago
As I noted, this post is saying AI can't achieve "genius" level creativity. Just a year ago the criticisms were that it couldn't match a human. How is that not moving the goalposts?
link
pishpash 459 days ago
It doesn't say genius-level creativity, just any novel research-like creativity. I don't agree but that's a strawman.
link
nl 459 days ago
The "moving goalposts" thing is typically "When AI can do this we will have AI" then AI does the thing and people say "no it's not AI because it can't do this other thing"

I agree entirely this is annoying.

This case is different because there is no claim that we don't have AI, nor a claim that once we get that we will have AI.

Instead it's a very specific discussion of a particular weakness of current AI systems (that few would disagree with) and some thoughts about a roadmap for progress.

link