On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Skeletori <sami.per...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years
> to
> > find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best
> > possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws.
>  After-all,
> > evolution went from Lemurs to humans in millions of years, which was only
> a
> > couple million generations, and that was without specifically trying to
> > optimize for the computing power of the brain.  Russell Standish has
> argued
> > that human creativity is itself nothing more than a genetic algorithm at
> its
> > core.  Do you think there is something else to it, what capabilities
> would
> > need to be added to this program to make it more effective in its search?
> > (Presume it is programmed with all the information it needs to
> effectively
> > simulate and rate any design it comes up with)
> No, I also think that's pretty much all there is to it. Due to the
> anthropic principle we can't draw very many conclusions from the way
> intelligence has developed on our planet - we can't know what the
> probability of intelligent life is.
> I admit the chip design example is a poor one. Let's try this instead:
> How would you program an AI to achieve higher intelligence? How would
> it evaluate intelligence?
You would need to design a very general fitness test for measuring
intelligence, for example the shortness and speed at which it can find
proofs for randomly generated statements in math, for example.  Or the
accuracy and efficiency at which it can predict the next element given
sequenced pattern, the level of compression it can achieve (shortest
description) given well ordered information, etc.  With this fitness test
you could evolve better intelligences with genetic programming or a genetic

> > My hope and wish is that by this time, wealth and the economy as we know
> it
> > will be obsolete.  In a virtual world, where anyone can do or experience
> > anything, and everyone is immortal and perfectly healthy, the only
> commodity
> > would be the creativity to generate new ideas and experiences.  (I highly
> > recommend reading page this to see what such an existence could be:
> http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.htmlthis one is also interestinghttp://
> www.marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm).  If anyone can in the comfort
> > of their own virtual house experience drinking a soda, what need would
> there
> > be for Pepsi or Coke to exist as companies?
> That is also my wish. I'd like to see scenarios where this will
> happen. But I believe it's imperative to understand the mindset of the
> ruling elites. To them it's all about power and control. The
> biological layer will want to maintain control of the digital layer as
> long as possible, even at the expense of everything else. A politician
> might reply to you, "Whoa, pardner! That looks like socialism. No, we
> need free markets to allocate resources efficiently, strong property
> rights to prevent theft, and sufficient means to enforce them." And so
> on. Once a strategy has been formulated, the creation of an ideology
> to advance it is a simple matter.

That kind of reminds me of the proposals in many countries to tax virtual
property, like items in online multiplayer games.  It is rather absurd, it
is nothing but computations going on inside some computer which lead to
different visual output on people's monitors.  Then there are also things
such as network neutrality, which threaten the control of the Internet.  I
agree with you that there are dangers from the established interests fearing
loss of control as things go forward, and it is something to watch out for,
however I am hopeful for a few reasons.  One thing in technology's favour is
that for the most part it changes faster than legislatures can keep up with
it.  When Napster was shut down new peer-to-peer protocols were developed to
replace it.  When China tries to censor what its citizens see its populace
can turn to technologies such as Tor, or secure proxies.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to