Artificial Intelligence 2020 - is there progress? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
If AI is not based on linguistics, but on semantic forms, it can explain more than that. And in principle, this issue has long been resolved. There are many things that are not advertised, and even if they were to be publicly discussed, it would not do any good. No one will simply fit it into the usual logic.
As far as I am concerned, the development of AI has not done humanity any good. And wrong are those who think it's interesting and exciting. It would be better if these technologies didn't progress.
Totally agree. Only the arrival of AI will not avert anything and humanity will "enjoy" all the "miraculous" consequences of its invention. I think more than one generation will feel sorry for themselves and curse the "nefarious" AI.
Totally agree. Only the arrival of AI will not avert anything and humanity will "enjoy" all the dire consequences of its invention. I think more than one generation will feel sorry for themselves and curse the "nefarious" AI.
It has all come and many have been enjoying it for a long time. Others just don't know much about it. Yes and one's own cognitive system is fundamentally unaware. Otherwise he would have noticed many things long ago. Soon there will be nothing to notice. I myself am not against AI and algorithms. I have an aversion to those destructive structures that own and have exclusive rights to these technologies. For convenience and human development these technologies if and will be partially used, it will be in trifles and lastly.
I support Vitaly. There is one hypothesis that tries to explain the Fermi paradox. This paradox consists in that we do not see signs of life in the Universe though there was enough time of its existence and possibilities. So one hypothesis suggests that civilisations are born and quickly disappear without meeting each other. There is a universal mechanism for the demise of all civilisations. Because none have survived. Why don't they survive? Are we next?
Other life forms are not really a relevant topic for this resource. But it's not all so clear-cut in this area either. :)
Everything has already arrived and many people have been enjoying it for a long time. Others just don't know much about it. Yes, and one's own cognitive system is basically unaware of it. Otherwise he would have noticed many things long ago. Soon there will be nothing to notice. I myself am not against AI and algorithms. I have an aversion to those destructive structures that own and have exclusive rights to these technologies. For human convenience and development, these technologies will be partially used, if at all, in the last place.
To date, the "mental" limitations of AI have prevented it from conquering all niches of human activity, but this is temporary. In fact, we have not yet arrived at the level of the "intelligence" of a dog, but given the speed and scale of research in the field, it is conceivable that we will surpass the monkeys very quickly.
I myself am not an opponent of AI and algorithms. I have an aversion to those destructive entities that own and have exclusive rights to these technologies.
Ah, read your next post. Then I don't support it.
In fact, we have not yet arrived at the level of the "mind" of a dog, but given the speed and scope of research in the field, we can assume that we will surpass the mind of monkeys very quickly.
I apologise in advance, by "we" do you mean what? The AI, its developers, or yourself as a member of the human species? :)
I apologise in advance, by "we" do you mean what? The AI, its developers, or yourself as a member of the human species? :)
Humanity.) (I am, as it were, part of it, and therefore I mean myself as well. :)))