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?
Reverse-engineering techniques apply at many abstraction levels. Low levels
lead toward direct emulation, which higher levels lead more toward
understanding brain engineering. So I'd be looking for arguments that
higher level approaches will succeed faster than lower level approaches.
Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
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=64152351-a9b99b
