[ben_w]

> This is "it's just an engineering problem, we just have to follow the roadmap",

No, this is "it's a science problem". All this:

> except the roadmap is illegible and the incremental steps noodle around and lead somewhere else.

is what makes it science rather than engineering.

[card_zero]

I mean, thinking about it a lot and trying stuff out is good, but you can't claim anything you tried was a step toward the eventual vital insight, except retrospectively. It's not incremental like a progress bar, it's more like a spinner. Maybe something meaningful is going on, maybe not.

[auggierose]

I'd say if you are doing proper science, all your steps are towards the eventual vital insight. Many of the steps may turn out to lead down the wrong lane, but you cannot know that in advance. A simplified way to view this: If you are searching for a certain node in a graph, visiting wrong nodes in the process cannot be avoided, and of course is part of finding the right node.

From the outside though, it is tough to decide if somebody is doing proper science. Maybe they are just doing nonsense. Following a hunch or an intuition may look like nonsense from the outside, though.

[card_zero]

But (connecting this back to the start of the thread) then you can say things like "controlled nuclear fusion can in principle be achieved, therefore my experiments in cold fusion in a test tube are an incremental step toward it, therefore I am actually doing fusion, gib money".

[auggierose]

First, nobody is obliged to give you money. You'll need to convince them first.

Second, not sure what you are saying exactly, do you think "experiments in cold fusion in a test tube" are a step forward for science? Do you think a serious scientist would believe that?

As I said, playing science, and doing proper science, are two entirely different things, but hard to distinguish from the outside.

[card_zero]

Back in 1989 they (Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons) had a hunch, spent a lot of their own money, and did some experiments. Others couldn't replicate it. That much is a step forward by "visiting wrong nodes" as you put it, trying out a dead end.

Leaving money out of it, my point is that they weren't doing fusion, they were doing fusion research. Their device was for fusion, but it was not a working fusion device. Similarly, the software of AI researchers is not working AI software, and they are not doing AI, apart from semantic shift where we call it AI now anyway and created the term AGI to replace the former meaning.

It's not correct to say that an experiment, with the intent of finding out how to do a thing, is equal to the goal. It's a step.

Calling it "incremental" is misleading since all steps are incremental, and assuming you're doggedly determined and exit blind alleys and circles, you will eventually arrive, if the destination exists. But "incremental" suggests you know the distance and know how far there is to go, or at least can put a bound on it, and know in some sense which way. Like the whole thing is planned.

So saying that AI "is anything in the last 70 years utilizing a machine that could be considered an incremental steps towards [AI]" is misleading, in both those ways. The process is not the goal, and the goal is not being approached at a known rate.

[dumpsterdiver]

Now say what you just said in a really excited TV announcer voice, as if you’re really excited to find out, and boom - science.