My opinion is that if a claim is made to have the first working AGI then why don't we see it work?
It's like hearing your friend in high school claim a one night stand with the cutest girl in school, but the claim alone is not quite enough... some kind of confirmation is needed!!!! On 6/15/18, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:04 PM Mark Nuzz via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> The Singularity analogy was never intended to imply infinite power. Rather >> it represents a point at which understanding and predictability breaks >> down and becomes impossible. > > Agreed. Vinge called it an "event horizon" on our ability to see the > future. > > We observe faster than exponential growth. Global computing power and > stored information doubles every 1.5 years, but the doubling period is > shorter than a century ago if you consider older technologies like > books and adding machines. The problem is there are many > super-exponential functions that fit the data. Some have > singularities, like 1/t, and some do not, like e^(t^2). > > Turing predicted in 1950 that a machine would win the imitation game > by 2000. Vinge predicted in 1993 that the singularity probably would > happen by 2023 but he would be surprised if it was before 2005 or > after 2030. Kurzweil is still predicting computers exceeding human > brains in the mid 2040s. > > Global computing power is about 10^22 bits of storage and 10^19 > operations per second. The biosphere has 10^37 bits of DNA and > computes 10^33 DNA, RNA, and amino acid transcription operations per > second. A straightforward naive projection of Moore's Law suggests > that technology will surpass DNA based life around 2090. > > Freitas worked out the physics of self replicating nanotechnology in > https://foresight.org/nano/Ecophagy.php > Computing by moving atoms instead of electrons is 10^9 times more > energy efficient as transistors, but only marginally better than life. > Self replicating robots can only be slightly smaller and faster than > bacteria. Replacing DNA based life with new technology would be a > major but still evolutionary step, not a singularity. The best we > could do is build a Dyson sphere at 10,000 AU radius to compute 10^48 > operations per second at the Landauer limit near the CMB background > temperature of 3K (in 2165 if Moore's law holds). Any further progress > will require either interstellar travel or speeding up the sun's > energy output, perhaps by dropping a black hole into it. Regardless of > what we do, the finiteness of the observable universe must at some > point put a stop to Moore's law. > > -- > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ada390c367596a4-M3bc16b728067726c850af484 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups
