Hey, correspondants:
Is this Skeletori answering to an unmarked (>) remarker, or is this an
unnamed post-fragment (>) reflected upon by an unsigned "Skeletori'?
(just to apply some 'etiquette' to facilitate our reading)
John M

On 4/9/10, 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?
> > 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.
> I suspect that if digitized brains form the initial digital world, not
> only will most of the negative qualities of humans - greed,
> selfishness, xenophobia and so on, be transferred to the digital
> substrate, but also all the negative qualities of human societies with
> their antagonisms and the logic of power. There will still be
> competition over limited resources. And thus an ideal community won't
> be able to bootstrap itself out of our dog-eat-dog world. On the other
> hand, if the digital world is populated by benevolent AIs then they
> will be directed to research technologies to benefit humans, and any
> intelligence explosion will be carefully prevented from happening.
> If humanity is able to leave Earth, then I can see things being
> different. If faster-than-light travel isn't possible, it will be very
> difficult to project power over long distances, communities will
> splinter, and an ideal community could emerge. But what are the aims
> and the logic of evolution of an ideal community? Is it able to
> compete in destructive technologies with less enlightened communities,
> or will altruism be extinguished in the battle over resources? At
> least we can hope that the increased happiness and productivity of a
> good community could give it a big enough advantage over some digital
> dystopia.
> > What if the originator chose to sell this invention?  What
> > would he sell it for?  Some might try an economy based on unique ideas,
> > which might work for a while, but it would ultimately fail because
> something
> > only works as a currency if when transferred, one person gains it and
> > another loses it.  In the world of information, once something is given
> > once, it can then be shared with anyone.
> I agree, but this analysis presupposes the existence of a rational
> community.
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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