Comments by "Christopher Bruns" (@user-td4pf6rr2t) on "Harvard Business School" channel.

  1. 0:40 I feel like increase computation to increase intellect in ai is a front or meaning, the only environment that throwing money at it would be the only solution is when the technology is black box. 2:36 Is that how maritime laws work? 4:05 Is radical change even possible. Plus most of the morals we learned from the internet were when patching mistakes. Prestige by design and frontier is not plausible, at all. 6:!2 See now its turning to reacting to his reaction. People want AI so they can be lazy. If all jobs go away is the world we mould. If people think ai will take all the jobs AND we wont be able to afford dinner, are crazy. The work force is a mechanical eco system. AI can not destroy the role the job market plays and if able to replace completely would be BY DESIGN and not detrimental to society at all (moot that 1%). 9:42 imagine if Lincoln was disposed when abolishing slavery because people would lose capital. 11:22 not only but the fdic and fda are still true things and i doubt barclay is willing to give up being insured. Food and drugs still have trials, at least this is how i think it works. 14:01 That is not fair being a black boxed technology. So he used his own flaw as evidence to contrary. You people are nuts. 15:30 ideally I would crowd source what if in a perfect world ai would look like or be capable of (100% no bias either) then figure the probability of being able to accomplish 100% of this picture and then make decisions. Cause everyone is talking about hypothetical as if concrete evidence (so im not sure how judicial systems can say anything) and then realize that end product are never 100% of what the original imagining is. So even in a perfect world with no rules ai MIGHT meet 80% of expectation. Which when exponential probably adds up as far as 'lacking' or moulding a thing.
    1