Really? I thought the people like Moravec and Kurzweil were predicting 2030 to 2040? I have not seen any analysis from anyone that would push it off past 2100.
You might as well say that we gona create a Warp drive by 2100. Jump necessary for AI advancement makes settlement on Mars an easy problem. We are so far from that we really have no idea how far it is. Human level AI when it happens and it probably will will most likely be at a stage where current tech would seem something out of Ancient Greeks time if not Stone age.
We are moving fast, we are even accelerating fast and we have an incredibly far ways to go. In a situation like this even the most reasonable, well informed estimate could be off by an order of magnitude.
"The funny thing about AI is that it’s a moving target. In the seventies, someone might ask “what are the goals of AI?” And you might say, “Oh, we want a computer who can beat a chess master, or who can understand actual language speech, or who can search a whole database very quickly.” We do all that now, like face recognition. All these things that we thought were AI, we can do them. But once you do them, you don’t think of them as AI. It has this connotation of some mysterious magical component to it, but when you actually solve one of these problems, you don’t solve it using magic, you solve it using clever mathematics. It’s no longer magical. It becomes science, and then you don’t think of it as AI anymore. It’s amazing how you can speak into your phone and ask for the nearest Thai restaurant, and it will find it. This would have been called AI, but we don’t think about it like that anymore. So I think, almost by definition, we will never have AI because we’ll never achieve the goals of AI or cease to be caught up with it."
If you want to feel happy again read “Robot” or "Mind Children” by Hans Moravec. He has some pretty good arguments based on human vision that support a AGI around 2030 to 2040 assuming Moore’s Law (the general not specific law) hold.
Here it is in seven quick minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE
(Note: I think he's wrong in how he thinks it will unfold, but right in thinking the doubling every year of technology, in general, will contribute to bringing it about.)
I don’t care what people think about when (or if) we achieve AGI, I want to know why they think a particular date. What analysis have they done to reach their conclusion?
This may well be true, but what analysis has he done to support this. The only detailed analysis I have seen from anyone is from Moravec. I have been through his analysis and I can’t find any flaw with it.
He is in the "all we need is fast enough computers" camp. This claim is far from obvious: We can't even simulate the simplest organisms today despite the fact that we have extraordinary computing power relative to the capacity of these organisms.
This is true, but the evidence so far with AI is that as soon as we have sufficient computational power the tasks that were thought to require human intelligence were then solved by computers.
I don’t think anyone serious thinks that sufficient computational power alone will result in AGI, but we know that we aren’t going to have it until we get to the human level computational.
The interesting question is once we have human level computational power is how long will it take to develop AGI. The evidence from problems that require more limited intelligence (say chess) is that the problem is solved soon after the required computational resources are available.
