Robert Maxwell wrote:
Please. Your strategy is to just exhaust people with excessive verbiage. You haven't proven anything other than that you can type a lot.
I haven't typed a lot. Cut'n'paste isn't typing. It is typical that you guys don't notice these things, though.
You are all class.
It's true that I've typed more than you but then, since I'm actually saying something it takes more words. You really haven't had much more than "computers don't work like this now."
Wow, and it's me
who doesn't read what you
It's not just that computers don't work that way now, it's that there is no reason to believe they will ever
work in the way Singularity prophets think they will. They've worked under the same basic principles for decades, pretty much since they were created. Where is the evidence that we are on the verge of some revolutionary new computational technology?
This is entirely beside the point, so your words have still been a waste, exhausting verbiage trying to pass as argument. You don't even know that exponential growth is very slow at first! If you can't get something that simple right, you really have nothing to contribute but "AMEN!" as the preacher thunders out his fire and brimstone condemnations.
Oh, yeah. I'm just too dumb to know what "exponential growth" is. That's the ticket.
Here's a newsflash: it's not "exponential growth" if a technology remains in relative infancy for decades
. The bottom line is, artificial intelligence has been an almost total failure. After half a century of research and investigation, we've had to settle for special-purpose expert systems and refined algorithms. "Generalized AI" remains a fantasy that we seem to be no closer to achieving.
Computing technology itself has indeed shown exponential growth in that time. For some reason, AI hasn't. This may be a difficult fact to accept, but that's just what it is.