2008/8/29 j.k. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 08/29/2008 01:29 PM, William Pearson wrote: >> >> 2008/8/29 j.k.<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> >>> An AGI with an intelligence the equivalent of a 99.9999-percentile human >>> might be creatable, recognizable and testable by a human (or group of >>> humans) of comparable intelligence. That same AGI at some later point in >>> time, doing nothing differently except running 31 million times faster, >>> will >>> accomplish one genius-year of work every second. >>> >> >> Will it? It might be starved for lack of interaction with the world >> and other intelligences, and so be a lot less productive than >> something working at normal speeds. >> >> > > Yes, you're right. It doesn't follow that its productivity will necessarily > scale linearly, but the larger point I was trying to make was that it would > be much faster and that being much faster would represent an improvement > that improves its ability to make future improvements. > > The numbers are unimportant, but I'd argue that even if there were just one > such human-level AGI running 1 million times normal speed and even if it did > require regular interaction just like most humans do, that it would still be > hugely productive and would represent a phase-shift in intelligence in terms > of what it accomplishes. Solving one difficult problem is probably not > highly parallelizable in general (many are not at all parallelizable), but > solving tens of thousands of such problems across many domains over the > course of a year or so probably is. The human-level AGI running a million > times faster could simultaneously interact with tens of thousands of > scientists at their pace, so there is no reason to believe it need be > starved for interaction to the point that its productivity would be limited > to near human levels of productivity. > Only if it had millions of times normal human storage capacity and memory bandwidth, else it couldn't keep track of all the conversations, and sufficient bandwidth for ten thousand VOIP calls at once.
We should perhaps clarify what you mean by speed here? The speed of the transistor is not all of what makes a system useful. It is worth noting that processor speed hasn't gone up appreciably from the heady days of Pentium 4s with 3.8 GHZ in 2005. Improvements have come from other directions (better memory bandwidth, better pipelines and multi cores). The hard disk is probably what is holding back current computers at the moment. Will Pearson > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
