"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. "
- John McCarthy
We're talking about relative numbers here. Suppose you had an AI algorithm
that was exactly as good as the one the human brain uses. In fact, let's
suppose you had one that was two orders of magnitude better, since you will
be running it on serial hardware that has signal restoration and error
correction built in. This gives you approximately the Moravec HEPP to shoot
at, 100 tera-ops to equal a human. Buy a multi-megabuck supercomputer to run
it on. Now you have a machine that's just as smart as you are. How fast is it
going to improve itself? Just as fast as you could improve it--no faster.
Reading the internet sounds like a win ( and will be very useful) but there's
a disconnect between how fast current-day algorithms can process data, for
very stupid meanings of process, and how fast they could understand it, in
the sense that you do when you read. I don't see why we should expect a
human-level AGI to read the internet any faster than we can, if we want it to
understand and integrate the knowledge. That's the part that takes the big
horsepower.
Josh
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:29, John G. Rose wrote:
> A baby AGI has immense advantage. It's starting (life?) after billions of
> years of evolution and thousands of years of civilization. A 5 YO child
> can't float all languages, all science, all mathematics, all recorded
> history, all encyclopedia, etc. in sub-millisecond RAM and be able to
> interconnect to almost any type of electronics. There are a lot of
> comparisons of a 5YO with an AGI but I wonder about those... are we just
> anthropomorphisizing AGI by coming up with a tabula rasa feel good AGI that
> needs to learn like a cute human baby? Our brains are good I mean they are
> us but aren't they just biological blobs of goop that are half-assed
> excuses for intelligence? I mean why are AGI's coming about anyway? Is it
> because our brains are awesome and fulfill all of our needs? No. We need
> to be uploaded otherwise we die.
>
> John
>
> >> ... An AGI working with bigger numbers had better discovered binary
> >> numbers. Could an AGI do it? Could it discover rational numbers? (It
> >> would initially believe that irrational numbers do not exist, as early
> >> Pythagoreans have believed.) After having discovered the basic
> >> grounding, it could be taught the more advanced things.
> >
> > How many people on this list have discovered anything as fundamental as
>
> binary
>
> > numbers, I wonder? We take a lot of stuff for granted but we *learned*
>
> almost
>
> > all of it, we didn't discover it. There's a lot of hubris in the notion
>
> that
>
> > we, working from a technology base that can't build an AI with the common
> > sense of a 5-year-old, will turn around and build a system that will
> > duplicate 3000 years of the accumulated efforts of humanitiy's greatest
> > geniuses in a year or two.
> >
> > Josh
>
> -----
> 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/?&;
-----
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
