Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.

https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m

On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.

The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will (not to 
replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all respects, including 
come up with creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing problems 
but also small creative things like writing poems, and then to do the mental 
and physical tasks required to provide goods and services to all in the world,

Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; intelligence 
and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be 
very different indeed.

To quote Sam Altmen at 
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms
 
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>
  :

"intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we 
want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and 
can be amazingly better."



On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is what matters. 
  Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and there will be leakage 
between components.   A large network of transistors or neurons are 
sufficiently similar for my purposes.   The unrolling would be inside a skull, 
so somewhat isolated from interference.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
On Behalf Of glen
    Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
    To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW

    I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies no interaction with 
the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the 
artifacts laying about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. 
That's not to say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. But 
unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.

    On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
     > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time ago on 
serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from an unrolling of 
recursion.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Reply via email to