2008/6/22 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Two questions: > 1) Do you know enough to estimate which scenario is more likely?
Well since intelligence explosions haven't happened previously in our light cone, it can't be a simple physical pattern, so I think non-exploding intelligences have the evidence for being simpler on their side. So we might find them more easily. I also think I have solid reasoning to think intelligence exploding is unlikely, which requires paper length rather than post length. So it I think I do, but should I trust my own rationality? Getting a bunch of people together to argue for both paths seems like a good bet at the moment. > 2) What does this difference change for research at this stage? It changes the focus of research from looking for simple principles of intelligence (that can be improved easily on the fly), to one that expects intelligence creation to be a societal process over decades. It also makes secrecy no longer be the default position. If you take the intelligence explosion scenario seriously you won't write anything in public forums that might help other people make AI. As bad/ignorant people might get hold of it and cause the first explosion. > Otherwise it sounds like you are just calling to start a cult that > believes in this particular unsupported thing, for no good reason. ;-) > Hope that gives you some reasons. Let me know if I have misunderstood your questions. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
