> It's also worth it to note as well that this isn't a homogenous organization
Please don't consider my critique of this paper as an indictment of DeepMind as a whole!
> Many of DeepMind's opinion style papers are like this.
That's good to know. I have not read many of their opinion papers, and I'll admit I didn't have the context of it being an "opinion" paper.
That said, I don't agree with the opinion. The paper didn't really engage with the concept of AGI in a way that I found satisfying. The conclusion may very well be correct, but this paper wasn't enough to convince me.
Slightly OT: My views were reinforced when I saw the paper was praised by Patricia Churchland. I don't find her take on consciousness a satisfying one, though I find the general direction of her work interesting. See here for another example:
Please don't consider my critique of this paper as an indictment of DeepMind as a whole!
> Many of DeepMind's opinion style papers are like this.
That's good to know. I have not read many of their opinion papers, and I'll admit I didn't have the context of it being an "opinion" paper.
That said, I don't agree with the opinion. The paper didn't really engage with the concept of AGI in a way that I found satisfying. The conclusion may very well be correct, but this paper wasn't enough to convince me.
Slightly OT: My views were reinforced when I saw the paper was praised by Patricia Churchland. I don't find her take on consciousness a satisfying one, though I find the general direction of her work interesting. See here for another example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/nvtgwr/grand_th...