DiedOnTitan

>Google search did not use machine learning because it did not exist as a concept.

It is true that Google Search didn't use ML, but that's besides the point. Machine learning is only one branch of AI. Every introductory college course on AI covers each of the branches of AI, because the field is so diverse.

>only until the mid 2000's onward have machines been sort of capable of actually learning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Analysis_and_Replanning_Tool

>I would suggest you put in a little more effort into understanding the technology and its history before talking about something you're not educated on.
>...
>Would you have been as dismissive of Bitcoin if cipherpunks talked about for years leading up to it how there will eventually be a technology that is capable of replacing the financial system? Because Bitcoin has been a goal since the HTTP status code for it was created.
>All technology is deflationary, failure to understand this and failure to understand what AI will deflate will put you at a disadvantage. So I guess in 5-10 years you'll just listen to some politician instead and point your finger at whoever they decide to scapegoat rather than making any attempt to learn new technology. Stop being so fearful.

To paraphrase an old adage among lawyers: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you don't have the facts on your side, declare the other guy to be a philistine."

02dc6a50c1

That is what the AI industry has said every 5-10 for the last 60 years. So far, only special-prupose AIs (e.g. Google Search) have born any fruit.

deleted by author

brandonsbytes

>Give it 5-10 years.

That is what the AI industry has said every 5-10 for the last 60 years. So far, only special-prupose AIs (e.g. Google Search) have born any fruit.