>Making the bold an unscientific assumption that this sub is at least decently representative of people “in the know” on ML,.
The increasing number of posts like this indicate that it may no longer be the case.
I’m not trying to be snarky or mean when I say this, but these sorts of posts offer pretty much zero insight or discussion value. There are a lot of very knowledgeable minds on this subreddit, but you won’t be able to get much out of it by asking such vague and sweeping questions.
uiucecethrowaway999 t1_je3hpyz wrote
Reply to [D] Prediction time! Lets update those Bayesian priors! How long until human-level AGI? by LanchestersLaw
>Making the bold an unscientific assumption that this sub is at least decently representative of people “in the know” on ML,.
The increasing number of posts like this indicate that it may no longer be the case.
I’m not trying to be snarky or mean when I say this, but these sorts of posts offer pretty much zero insight or discussion value. There are a lot of very knowledgeable minds on this subreddit, but you won’t be able to get much out of it by asking such vague and sweeping questions.