John> Fully decoding the human genome is almost impossible. Not only John> is there the problem of protein folding, which I think even John> supercomputers can't fully solve, but the purpose for the John> structure of each protein depends on interaction with the John> incredibly complex molecular structures inside cells.
Yes, but you have all kinds of advantages in decoding the genome that you don't have, for example, in decoding the human mind (although you might have in an AGI): such as the ability to perform ingenious knockout experiments, comparative genomics, etc. Also, the John> genetic code for a human being is basically made of the same John> elements that the genetic code for the lowliest single-celled John> creature is made of, and yet it somehow describes the initial John> structure of a system of neural cells that then developes into a John> human brain through a process of embriological growth (which John> includes biological interaction from the mother -- why you can't John> just grow a human being from an embryo in a petri dish), and John> then a fairly long process of childhood development. John> This is the way evolution created mind somewhat randomly over John> three billion (and a half?) years. The human mind is the John> pinnacle of this evolution. With this mind along with collective John> intelligence, it shouldn't take another three billion years to John> engineer intelligence. Evolution is slow -- human beings can John> engineer. Yes, but (a) evolution had vastly more computational power than we did-- it had the ability to use this method to design the brain; and (b) plausible arguments (see What is Thought?) suggest that there may be no better way to design a mind; and (c) the supposition that evolution can't engineer is also unproven. You believe evolution designed us, and we engineer, so in a sense you believe evolution engineers. But I suggest, when we "engineer" what we basically do is a search over alternatives strongly constrained by knowledge evolution built in, and that the way evolution got to us was similarly by building knowledge that strongly constrained its search, recursively; so in fact it may make considerable sense to say that evolution engineers in basically the same way we do. Why do you think it looks so much like we are designed? John> ----- Original Message ----- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: >> Eric Baum wrote: (Why should producing a human-level AI be cheaper >> than decoding the genome?) >> >> Because the genome is encrypted even worse than natural language. >> John> ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: John> http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your John> options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
