>AI will never be able to write publishable academic papers
>AI will never be able to pass the Turing test
>AI will never be able to achieve gold medal performance at international math competitions
>AI will never produce original mathematical discoveries
>AI will never be able to do research as well as a first year PhD student
>AI will never be able to do research capable of a PhD graduate
>AI will never disprove a famous mathematical conjecture that has resisted mathematicians for decades
>AI will never resolve an 80 year old Erdős conjecture
>AI will never be able to achieve a perfect olympiad score on all problems
>AI will never solve multiple longstanding open problems across different branches of mathematics
>AI will never make substantial progress on the most difficult outstanding mathematical problems that humans have ever conceived
>AI will never be able to produce Nobel worthy research
>AI will never replace a meaningful portion of white collar knowledge work
>AI will never be able to master common human sense
>AI will never be able to negotiate a complex business deal without human oversight
>AI will never be able to direct an award winning film
>AI will never be able to manage a company's operations end to end without humans
>AI will never be able to invent new scientific paradigms
>AI will never develop persistent memory and a continuous sense of identity
>AI will never be able to run a company successfully
>AI will never achieve general superhuman intelligence
>AI will never be able to govern responsibly
>AI will never be able to achieve consciousness
>AI will never be able to surpass human intelligence in every domain
>AI will never be able to redefine what it means to be human

every time I update this list it keeps growing faster with AI achievements
It used to be like 10 lines long.
I won't be able to keep up anymore soon at this rate

And is this pro or anti AI?
People don't get it, the most dangerous thing about AI isn't AI, it's people. It's always people.
Because of the wright brother we got military planes that carpet bomb nations.
We are in a degree of existential danger we don't understand because hell fire falling from the sky was something only possible in myth.
Imagine the threat AI might bring in the devil's hands.

One ore I want to add

>AI will never be able to synthesise a novel drug that saves millions of lives

>>544530022
Pro
AI is the greatest human technology that has ever, or will ever be made

From this point forward,
new technology won't be human made.

>>544529823
In all fairness, the Samuel Pierpont Langley debacle was fucking hilarious. Even more hilarious is that he ran the Smithsonian Institution, and he refused to give the Wright Brothers credit for developing a functional flying airplane, trying to create the exhibit showing himself being the one who had succeeded, to the point that the Wrights initially gave the Wright Flyer to a foreign museum.

> the [1914] Curtiss flights emboldened the Smithsonian to display the Aerodrome [Langley's unsteerable airplane, which crashed] in its museum as "the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight". Fred Howard, extensively documenting the controversy, wrote: "It was a lie pure and simple, but it bore the imprimatur of the venerable Smithsonian and over the years would find its way into magazines, history books, and encyclopedias, much to the annoyance of those familiar with the facts." (Howard, 1987). The Smithsonian's action triggered a decades-long feud with the surviving Wright brother, Orville, who objected to the Institution's claim of primacy for the Aerodrome.

>>544530852
Whoops, he died in 1906. I guess he personally wasn't the driving force behind the Smithsonian refusing to credit the Wright Brothers, it was just all his supporters at the museum. Probably some of them were his family members.

Go read about the rivalry, though. The story of Langley's "Aerodrome" and how he felt that flying would be much like flying a car, just point the aircraft where you want it to go and it will obey your commands, is truly something to make anyone laugh.

>>544529823
Oh, the NYT is also (in)famous for mocking Tsiolkovsky's paper on spaceflight, claiming that because there was nothing out in space for a rocket's exhaust to push against, a rocket could never work.

File: sss.jpg (41 KB, 415x739)

41 KB JPG

AI is the only way I will get a GF.

That is why we need AI

The mechanics of flight were understood by like 1880, they were just waiting for an engine light enough to do it.

Car companies in the 1900s knew they couls achieve flight, they were just too busy churning out automobiles as that was the highly sought after new technology. It's why two bicycle mechanics with lots of free time were the ones to achieve it.

Planes didnt have a practical non reconissance use until the 1920s either. It took until cantilever wings and metal skin frames for there to be organic demand. And both of those required, again, better ICEs to power them.

>>544529823
Planes are a hoax. OP is a massive faggot.

Life would be much much different if the wright brothers had existed 500years earlier. We came a long way in 130years. Imagine 500

>>544531423
>The mechanics of flight were understood by like 1880
No, they really weren't. While Cayley intuited the basic layout in 1799, actual control systems still hadn't been figured out. That is why Langley failed, and why the Wright Brothers went with that weird-ass "wing warping" for roll control that was barely functional and inherently shitty.

And it's not just that the controls hadn't been worked out, it's that the whole mindset of the vast majority of would-be aeronauts was wrong. They mostly figured that flying would be just like driving -- the so-called "chauffeur" school of thought, which Langley was a big part of.

What set the Wright Brothers apart was that they realized early on that the "chauffeurs" were full of shit and that flying would be inherently very different from ground transport -- that airfoils had to be tested and carefully chosen, that turns had to be coordinated and not simply forced, that stalling out was a risk and that airspeed was important.

There was some New Zealand guy who was almost first, but he crashed his invention because he wasn't nearly as rigorous as the Wrights in trying to figure out the issues.

>>544531697
No, it really wouldn't. Except that someone else would have had to come up with a working airplane a few years later than they did. It couldn't have happened much earlier, since we didn't have engines with the power-to-weight ratio needed.

The chauffers were more right than wrong. Early flying was a dangerous novelty for rich hobbyists outside of military use. You do want planes to be relatively stable and not risk fucking up your life due to a strong gust of wind.

The resources were better spent on simply improving internal combustion motors, the car companies had it right. It took until motors got stronger that you could have heavier planes, and you could fly them relatively stable and have internal stabilization mechanisms. A step closer to the chauffer school. And it was then car companies got involved and started their own plane divisions.

ai proponents always sound like rape victims

>>544529823
indeed
although I am fearful of the political and economic consequences of mass automation, i also adore it since many people dismissed the idea that a computer program could do their job.

>>544532116
interesting