On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines · HackerPapers discussions

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Sat, 16 May 2026 20:28:56 GMT

The Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

10 points; 3 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by lostmsu

Mon, 07 Jul 2025 03:30:14 GMT

I expected to find the link to https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987 (which is much better imo)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by patrickhogan1

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 02:24:20 GMT

Every time I come across a skeptic article like this, I just remind myself of the sarcastic paper "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" and can’t help but laugh. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:55:28 GMT

The Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

59 points; 50 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Sat, 05 Aug 2023 16:03:53 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017) [pdf]

4 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Sun, 16 Jul 2023 00:41:09 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Fri, 07 Apr 2023 02:31:50 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by Recursing

Sun, 08 Jan 2023 13:51:33 GMT

See also: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by visarga

Sun, 20 Nov 2022 08:21:57 GMT

There's at least this one - On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by JonyEpsilon

Sat, 06 Aug 2022 20:29:16 GMT

One of my favourite contributions to this debate: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987 "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines In recent years, a number of prominent computer scientists, along with academics in fields such as philosophy and physics, have lent credence to the notion that machines may one day become as large as humans. Many have further argued that machines could even come to exceed human size by a significant margin. However, there are at least seven distinct arguments that preclude this outcome. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 19:38:29 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)

85 points; 95 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by _aavaa_

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 19:03:36 GMT

I'd like to point the reader's attention to [1]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by jbay808

Wed, 25 Aug 2021 19:15:09 GMT

Reminds me of the brilliant "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" [1]. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible. [...] The term “supersized machine” implies a machine that has crossed some threshold, which is often denoted “human-level largeness.” However, it is not clear what “human-level largeness” could refer to. Has a machine achieved human-level largeness if it has the same height as the average human? If it has the same volume? The same weight? [...] When one begins to consider these questions, one quickly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Fri, 02 Apr 2021 09:51:23 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by gwern

Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:14:18 GMT

Also worth reading: "On The Impossibility of Supersized Machines" https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by seagreen

Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:49:59 GMT

Why do people keep reposting that first article? I encourage you to reread it with a critical eye. A choice quote: In contradistinction to this orthodoxy, I find the following five heresies to have more evidence to support them. Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. Humans do not have general purpose minds, and neither will AIs. This is awfully similar to "On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf). EDIT: Re: energy efficiency: the problem is that humans are too energy efficient. Your brain can keep…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by mrec

Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:34:05 GMT

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to reading On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by drngdds

Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:17:16 GMT

Another fun one: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by Veedrac

Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:22:52 GMT

> I'm reminded of the joke paper claiming machines can never surpass human largeness, because what does largeness even mean? Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — mentioned by ooku

Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:56:42 GMT

The author should read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines — HN submission

Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:38:16 GMT

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines

44 points; 28 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.