Hacker News Reader

Comment by neonbat | Hacker News Reader

I agree; that is part of his argument. Obviously though it is a completely flawed argument. Up until the creation of the personal computer most machines were specialists. They were large computers designed for specific computation tasks or machines made specifically for manufacturing certain kinds of goods. Generalist computers didn't have much precedent. That's kind of the point of new technology. It's not necessarily predicated by something that came before. It is orders of magnitude better.

To me this argument has historically less validity than creative people dreaming about singular, binary acts of creation. Historically those people have won.

View on HN

Up until the creation of the personal computer most machines were specialists. They were large computers designed for specific computation tasks or machines made specifically for manufacturing certain kinds of goods.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Back in the 60s, way before personal computers, the were many time-sharing companies, selling general "computing resources" to different people who would dial-up into the machines and run their own programs.

Yeah I thought about that when I was writing the reply. I don't really consider that a generalized use case. Is it more generalized? Yes. Computing itself, however, can be argued to be a specialized task. My computer today doesn't do "computing" it lets me read news stories, it lets me talk on skype, it lets me send mail, it lets me have philosophical discussions on hackernews. The personal computer is so clearly a generalized machine whereas those time sharing rigs back in the 60s were clearly not. They were specialized tools for programmers.

PLATO had graphical terminals with touch screens and software implementing forums, message boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games. They weren't just used by programmers by a long shot.

Ok, fine. PLATO was a super cool more generalist machine that happens to not be a personal computer. My use of personal computers was just an example that I thought would get a point across about the evolution of technology. The fact that PLATO existed and was very different than what came before it (as per all the cool stuff you listed) if anything strengthens the argument I was making. Generalist machines were a big step up from what came before, orders of magnitude better. A super-AI will also be unpredictably orders of magnitude better than what we've done so far.

But my point is that the generalist computers weren't a sudden or unpredictable step, they were the result of slow and progressive improvement. If generalist computers are any example to go by, the fact that we don't have anything close to a primitive general AI indicates we're far, far away from developing anything close to a "super-AI".

That's not an argument why special purpose AI leads to general purpose AI with motivation take over the world, and I still haven't seen one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com