undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgwoolhurme2y ago0 comments

That is actually a really interesting find. Some of the verbiage is parallel to the hype we have around AGI right now too "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." does that not sound exactly like AGI in X year up from Y year that we read now?

0 comments

patrickas2y ago

Please see my reply to parent.

> "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." Those three dots are omitting the most important part of the issue if we spend that much extra money on R&D

In the fusion case no one was willing to spend the money, in AGI's case it looks like everyone seems to be willing to spend the money.

I personally hope they won't, but that is a crutial point not to be overlooked.

gwoolhurmeOP2y ago

That wasn’t the case at all for fusion. It is that to be viable different scientific breakthroughs in particle physics, and lasers. Especially to the point where the demo recently showed the viability of it. If you read up on it you’ll see that there was a lot of important steps that lead up to the short demo that was achieved. That is my point though, if you read the article even after the ellipses it wasn’t a monetary issue.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse