Limiting yourself to methods that are easy to understand is like looking for your keys under the streetlight. Small-scale methods may be easy to analyze, but they lack the richness and complexity that makes intelligence interesting.
> Small-scale methods may be easy to analyze, but they lack the richness and complexity that makes intelligence interesting.
I don't disagree.
But what a scientist would do after having strong evidence that huge scaling might help is attempting to understand what part of the much larger complexity leads to this qualitative change.
