Eric Baum wrote:
even if there would be some way to keep modifying the top level to
make it better, one could presumably achieve just as powerful an
ultimate intelligence by keeping it fixed and adding more powerful
lower levels (or maybe better yet, middle levels) or more or
better chunks
Eric Baum wrote:
Eric Baum wrote:
even if there would be some way to keep modifying the top level to
make it better, one could presumably achieve just as powerful an
ultimate intelligence by keeping it fixed and adding more powerful
lower levels (or maybe better yet, middle levels) or more
Eric Baum wrote:
Eliezer It should be emphasized that I wrote LOGI in 2002;
Didn't know that. Are the rest of the papers in that 2005 book as old?
Eliezer Nonetheless, calling something complex doesn't explain it.
Methinks you protest too much, although I take the point.
You may be
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
Eric Baum wrote:
Eliezer Considering the infinitesimal amount of information that
Eliezer evolution can store in the genome per generation, on the
Eliezer order of one bit,
Actually, with sex its theoretically possible to gain something like
sqrt(P) bits per
Eric Baum wrote:
These matters are discussed in more detail in What is Thought?,
particularly the later chapters.
You may assume I've read it.
Eliezer,
I enjoyed Levels of Organization in General Intelligence. I very
much agree that there must be depth and complexity in the
computation.
Eliezer It should be emphasized that I wrote LOGI in 2002;
Didn't know that. Are the rest of the papers in that 2005 book as old?
Eliezer Nonetheless, calling something complex doesn't explain it.
Methinks you protest too much, although I take the point. But I did
like the presentation--
