On 27/10/2014 21:22, Matt Mahoney via AGI wrote: > My estimate is based on the information content of the human genome. > The interesting thing about this is that the human genome is not much > bigger than that of an insect. Thus, the major distinction between > "insect level intelligence" and "human level intelligence" is > computing power.
That's assuming that all the relevant programming is stored in DNA genes. However our cultural programming should count for something. The conclusion that the major distinction between "insect level intelligence" and "human level intelligence" is computing power ignores cultural evolution. Modern humans are smart partly because of their accumulated cultural heritage - the wisdom of the memes, not the wisdom of the genes. > A lot of people think that there ought to be a really simple general > learning algorithm. Perhaps it is a deep, hierarchical neural network > or something like it that could be applied to vision, hearing, > language, motor control, game playing, or whatever else you throw at > it. First, Hutter proved that the optimal solution (AIXI) is not > computable, and that approximations like AIXI^tl and Goedel machines > have exponential time complexity. Second, Legg proved ( > http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0606070 ) that good predictors (how we > normally measure intelligence) are necessarily complex. There are simple general learning algorithms. We have found some of them already - the lowest hanging fruit. The search for more of them is abundantly justified by the successes so far and the youth of computer science. This is part of the modern code rush. We also know that once evolution reaches a certain point, it develops a recursive character and progress accelerates. We saw historically that this happened around the time that our ancestors developed speech - and cultural evolution took off. Machine evolution is already going thousands of times faster than DNA evolution managed (according to Moravec). If machine intelligence today is somewhere around the insect stage, it seems plausible that once it can better contribute to its own development, we might see a broadly similar hike in the rate of progress. However, we generally seem to be on the same page regarding: this isn't a problem for a lone genius with a laptop - and that it is likely to take a lot of hard work. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply. ------------------------------------------- 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
