zlacker

> I think the point is that we have been “meaningfully closing” the gap rapidly

In your opinion, how wide is this gap? To claim that it is closing at a meaningful pace brings the implication that we understand the width. Has anyone made a credible claim that we actually understand the width of the gap?

> The understanding of the human ‘parts’ are being chipped away, just as quickly as we have had breakthroughs in AI.

This is a thinking trap. Without an understanding or definition of the breadth of the problem space, both fields could be making perfectly equivalent progress and it would still imply nothing regarding the width of the gap or the progress made closing it.

> These fields are starting to converge and inform each other.

Collaboration does not imply anything more than the existence of cooperation across fields. Do you have specific examples where the science itself is converging?

My understanding is that our ability to comprehend neural processes is still so limited that researchers focus on the brains of worms (e.g. a flatworm’s 53 neurons), and we still don’t understand how they work.

> and at this point it is only a matter of time, the end can be seen

Who is claiming we have any notion of being close enough to see the end? Most experts on the cutting edge cite the enormous distance yet to be covered.

I’m not claiming the progress made isn’t meaningful by itself. I’m struggling with your claim that we have any idea how much further we have to go.

Landing rovers on Mars is a huge achievement, but compared to the array of advancements required to colonize space, it seems like just a small step forward in comparison.

>>haswel+(OP)
You are right, I'm playing fast and loose with some assumptions and opinions without citations.

I just don't like falling into the other trap of wasting my day to write a complete paper with citations for some loosely defined internet argument on a subject that is already stacked on a pile of controversy and misunderstandings. I think I could easily find a number of citations that have conflated vocabulary, or re-defined vocabulary. This is my opinion, don't think I need to document a cited cross reference list of these re-defined terms to say this.

Probably this is the same problem that exists between a research paper, and a popular science book. Neither is as detailed and exact or also as high level and understandable as everyone desires. So, yes, these are some opinions, just from a certain point of view, my opinions are more correct than others opinions.

>>Frustr+ea
The point isn’t that you need citations - it’s that there is nothing to cite that can credibly inform us as to the size of the remaining gap.

>>jeremy+FB
Well. I'm really not trying to get the last word here. But if this is a problem, that if we don't have any a way to credibly inform the future, then we can't talk about it, then how can we ever talk about anything. There is entire cottage industry of futurists that don't have any way to judge how far off there predictions are, to inform the remaining gap. Maybe you have same issues with them. And maybe I do too really, I'm pretty perturbed by so many researchers switching context and vocabulary to fit their own narrative. I'm just some joe schmo with an opinion, and am only pointing out that advancements have been occurring at a really rapid pace and almost universally (opinion) all predictions have been wrong so far. So maybe this gap will close rapidly.

Or more to the main post, a lot of head down engineers cranking out solutions do loose sight of how far they are moving.