Matt Mahoney wrote:
You wrote:
1. It is not possible for a less intelligent entity (human) to predict
the behavior of a more intelligent entity.
Anna questions:
I'm just curious to know why?
If you're saying it's not possible then you must have some pretty good
references to back that statement.
Robert wrote:
Well, ever's a long time.
Yes, my apology, I was thinking on the terms of say 20-35 years.
Anna:)
On 9/27/06, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/06, Anna Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce LaDuke wrote:
I don't believe a machine can ever have intention
economical ways to motivate the
military to want to concentrate on singularity-level events or am I
wasting my time trying to be optimistic?
Just Curious
Anna:)
On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Anna Taylor wrote:
On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote:
But I agree that huge military RD expenditure (which
.
Anna:)
On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ignoring the mass is only going to limit the potential of any idea.
People buy CD's, watch tv, download music, chat, read (if you're
lucky) therefore the only possible solution is to find a way to
integrate within the mass population
the thoughts.
Just my thoughts, let me know what you think.
Anna:)
On 10/25/06, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anna Taylor wrote:
On, Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:11 R. Loosemore wrote:
What I have in mind here is the objection (that I know
some people will raise) that it might harbor some
Josh Cowan wrote:
Issues associated with animal rights are better known then the coming
Singularity.
Issues associated with animal rights are easy to understand, they make
you feel good when you help. The general public can pick up a phone,
donate money and feel rewarded that it is helping a
-level events?
Any opinions would be helpful.
Just curious
Anna
On 10/27/06, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote:
But I agree that huge military RD expenditure (which already supports
many, many research groups
Ben wrote:
That doesn't mean they couldn't have some smart staff who shifted
research interest to AGI after moving to Google, but it doesn't seem
tremendously likely.
I don't agree. Google is a form of research engine that enables
information in grose load. How you decyfer it, is up to the
