David Clark writes:
Everyone on this list is quite different.
It would be interesting to see what basic interests and views the members of
this list hold. For a few people, published works answer this pretty
clearly but that's not true for most list members.
I'll start.
I'm a dilettante. I am most interested in spending my time wondering how
small a chunk of "code" could implement AGI. I believe that the physical
and cultural structure of a human being's environment provide the vast
majority of the complexity of a human mind, and there may be a rather small
amount of complexity (necessary "code") needed to leverage that environment.
I'm interested in figuring out exactly what this small core would need to
do.
I guess something like 10^16 operations working on 10^16 bits of information
is roughly what's required for "human equivalence", given operations and
bits defined roughly in current computer terms. I think those numbers are
just about average for those interested in AGI who have made public guesses.
Since there are still so many orders of magnitude between any hardware I
can get my hands on and the amount required, I'm content to just think about
things for now and don't feel a big need to write lots of code right now.
I do think it is crucial for us to build AGI before it can run at human
equivalence in real-time, so we can understand it and hopefully avoid
scenarios like Yudkowski describes where self-improvement rapidly spirals
out of control. If it turns out that a Commodore 64, Pentium4-based pc, or
BlueGene are already powerful enough for AGI, we could be in trouble.
What about the rest of you, what are your interests?
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
