On 03/05/2013 09:49 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
I don't know how much AGI will ultimately cost and what exactly will be
required but I don't understand your assumptions/conclusions. Evolution
probably is not the most intelligent nor most effective way to come up
with intelligence. But evolution had no choice but to start out with
many, many particles with a total intelligence of zero. It seems that in
our particular universe evolution can not go from zero to AIXI
intelligence without billions of years full of intermediate steps.
Just because nobody has created an AGI system does not mean that it will
require massive amounts of X? You seem to prefer brute force attempts to
arrive at AGI instead of acquiring the philosophical/mathematical
insight of what intelligence really means given finite computational
resources?
And in order for those $70 trillion to be of any help you would need
people who actually think that AGI is feasible within a couple of years
... most people do not think that it is, are not really familiar with
the concept or the most profound implications for our species and
society. You could also save many trillions by implementing a
cooperative system and it is not happening any time soon because people
do not (yet?) understand.
Humans have DNA because humans are a product of evolution and because
superintelligence apparently could not just emerge from dust and water
alone. That analogy makes no sense? An AGI system will not need a planet
and no farmers - those are just intermediate steps. Just because Homo
Sapien does require food and social interaction does not mean that an
AGI system will?
That reminds me of http://xkcd.com/505/ ;-)
Including people who have died, there have been 100 billion humans.
But perhaps you can tell me what you think AGI will cost, in hardware,
software, knowledge, and dollars, and tell me how you estimated those
numbers. If you think that AGI just needs some smart person hacking on
their laptop for a few months, maybe you can explain why nobody has
been smart enough to figure it out in spite of the $70 trillion per
year they could save by automating human labor worldwide. If you think
that human intelligence doesn't require petaflops and petabytes, maybe
you can explain why human level intelligence never evolved in insect
sized brains. If you think that it can be done with a few thousand
lines of code, then explain why humans need so much DNA. Why haven't
we evolved in just a few thousand generations from the origin of life
with just a few thousand DNA base pairs? If you dismiss the
contributions of billions of sustenance level farmers to the works of
Shakespeare, then try raising a child from birth with no human contact
and see what they accomplish. If I recall, the last time this
experiment was done, the babies all died.
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
