On 11/10/07, Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > skeptical. Specifically, after ten years as an AI researcher, my > inclination has been to see progress as very slow toward an explicitly-coded > AI, and so to guess that the whole brain emulation approach would succeed > first if, as it seems, that approach becomes feasible within the next > century. > > But I want to try to make sure I've heard the best arguments on the other > side, and my impression was that many people here expect more rapid AI > progress. So I am here to ask: where are the best analyses arguing the > case for rapid (non-emulation) AI progress? I am less interested in the
You specify non-emulation AI progress. Can you be a bit more specific? Obviously arguments for why full-brain emulation will happen aren't the ones you're after, but what about arguments about, say, brain reverse-engineering techinques becoming better and thereby also leading to breakthroughs in "pure" AI if the algorithms employed by the brain become understood? -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=63903984-5ab472
