Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Mike Deering wrote: Based on available data how are we to calculate the doubling time extrapolation into the future? On 1/6/2003 Stephen Reed writes. Progressing from -50 db HEC to 0 db HEC in 22 years is equivalent to Moore's Law doubling every 16 months. [ 2^16.61 = 100025, 22/16.61*12 = 15.9 ] A careful examination of this formula shows that Stephen is merely averaging the doubling time over the past 22 years and applying that constant to the next 22 to arrive at his crossover date of 2021. A constant extratulation of an average doubling time is not the correct method to project an exponentially changing value. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get good historical data on entry level computer market. I would welcome any assistance. This is my current extrapolation: DATEDOUBLING TIMEDROPPING RATE 1900 48 months 1915 42 months6/180(6 months in 180 months) 1930 36 months6/180 1945 30 months6/180 1960 24 months6/180 1975 18 months6/180 1980 17 months1/60 1990 15 months2/120 1999.5 12 months3/114 2001 11 months1/18 2002.3 10 months1/15 2003.39 months 1/12 2004 8 months 1/10 2004.74 months 1/8 2004.63 months 1/6 2004.92 months 1/5 2005.21 month1/3 2005.31 month 1/1Singularity! Sharing your interest with regard to future computer hardware, I will stand by my estimate of doubling time. Assuming Intel makes the processors, take a look at this recent unofficial Intel processor roadmap out to 2006. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1045279519 -Steve -- === Stephen L. Reed phone: 512.342.4036 Cycorp, Suite 100 fax: 512.342.4040 3721 Executive Center Drive email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, TX 78731 web: http://www.cyc.com download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org === --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Mike, Actually, Stephen's method *is* pretty much a correct way of doing exponential curve fitting. It assumes that the underlying curve is an exponential rather than some kind of hyperexponential, though. Kurzweil's contention is that a hyperexponential(an exponential with a slowly exponentially growing exponent) isa better fit While Stephen's method could be a slight underestimate due to its assumption of an exponential rather than hyperexponential, I'mpretty certain your method leads to a gross overestimate!!It seems pretty unlikely thatthe decrease of entry level computer cost is gonna progress as fast as you say; that would mean entry level computers were free in 2005. Furthermore, even if entry level computers DID become free in 2005, this would not cause tremendous immediate AGI success! Although it would be cool, because we could get effectively unlimited machines for development and testing ;-) -- Ben G Based on available data how are we to calculate the doubling time extrapolation into the future? On 1/6/2003 Stephen Reed writes. "Progressing from -50 db HEC to 0 db HEC in 22 years is equivalent to Moore's Law doubling every 16 months. [ 2^16.61 = 100025, 22/16.61*12 = 15.9 ]" A careful examination of this formula shows that Stephen is merely averaging the doubling time over the past 22 years and applying that constant to the next 22 to arrive at his crossover date of 2021. Aconstant extratulation of an average doubling time is not the correct method to project an exponentially changing value. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get good historical data on entry levelcomputer market. I would welcome any assistance. This is my current extrapolation: DATE DOUBLING TIME DROPPING RATE 1900 48 months 1915 42 months 6/180 (6 months in 180 months) 1930 36 months 6/180 1945 30 months 6/180 1960 24 months 6/180 197518 months 6/180 1980 17 months 1/60 1990 15 months 2/120 1999.5 12 months 3/114 2001 11 months 1/18 2002.310 months 1/15 2003.3 9 months1/12 2004 8 months1/10 2004.7 4 months1/8 2004.6 3 months1/6 2004.92 months1/5 2005.2 1 month 1/3 2005.3 1 month 1/1 Singularity! Mike Deering. www.SingularityActionGroup.com --new website.
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Processing speed is a necessary but far from sufficient criterion of AGI design. The software engineering aspect is going to be the bigger limitation by far. It is common to speak of the brain as x neurons and Y synapses but the truth of it is that there are layers of complexity beneath the synapses. Even more important is the vast heterogeneity between brain regions. Even within cortex regions of similar architechture(and there are many different types of cortex!), the interconnections between regions alone effectively equate to specializied subsystems. If raw horsepower were the limiting factor, evolution could have easily given us massively homogeneous blobs of neural tissue at a cheap engineering/DNA cost. The fact that evolution uses a diverse and heterogeneous neural architecture tells us above all that it is *necessary*. Long term evolution doesn't do things it doesn't have to. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Processing speed is a necessary but far from sufficient criterion of AGI design. The software engineering aspect is going to be the bigger limitation by far. Hmmm. I think the critical problem is neither processing speed, NOR software engineering per se -- it's having a mind design that's correct in all the details. Or is that what you meant by software engineering? To me, software engineering is about HOW you build it, not about WHAT you build in a mathematical/conceptual sense. However, it is a fact that having cheaper faster better computers is helpful in arriving at a fully correct mind design. Because, it lets you experiment with possible mind designs, and variations on mind designs, more easily, cheaply and quickly. And cheaper computers let individuals in less wealthy nations get online and start computing, which adds more brainpower to the mix... -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Faster computers make AI easier. They do not make Friendly AI easier in the least. Once there's enough computing power around that someone could create AI if they knew exactly what they were doing, Moore's Law is no longer your friend. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Hmmm. I think the critical problem is neither processing speed, NOR software engineering per se -- it's having a mind design that's correct in all the details. Or is that what you meant by software engineering? To me, software engineering is about HOW you build it, not about WHAT you build in a mathematical/conceptual sense. That is what I meant, yes. The WHAT that you build. The HOW isn't so much important except in that it's efficient enough to get the job done and doesn't leave the authors lost. I guess my point is that if you take as a thought experiment the idea that on waking up tomorrow and we found all of our cpu's magically running at 10x the speed (memory 10x, etc), we wouldn't be that much closer to an AGI because we're still working on what to do with the power. However, with your experience at webmind you would know better than I how cpu limits constrain AGI design. And cheaper computers let individuals in less wealthy nations get online and start computing, which adds more brainpower to the mix... -- Ben G An excellent, and rarely stated point. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
It is obvious that no one on this list agrees with me. This does not mean that I am obviously wrong. The division is very simple. My position: the doubling time has been reducing and will continue to do so. Their position: the doubling time is constant. This is not a question of philosophy but only of the data. What does the data show? If we had a stack of COMPUTER SHOPPER magazines for the past twenty years the question could be decided in short order. The drop in doubling time starts out very slowly. That is why it is not obvious yet. By the time it becomes obvious it will be too late. Mike Deering. www.SingularityActionGroup.com ---new website.
RE: [agi] doubling time revisted.
There are two issues here... 1) I think therate of decreasetime of entry-level computer price may be increasing ... i.e. in your terms "the doubling time has been reducing". I think you're overestimating the rate of increase of the rate of decrease, though... 2) I think you overestimate the effect of cheaper entry level computers on AGI progress. The effect is substantial but not THAT substantial, in my view... Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike DeeringSent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] "doubling time" revisted. It is obvious that no one on this list agrees with me. This does not mean that I am obviously wrong. The division is very simple. My position: the doubling time has been reducing and will continue to do so. Their position: the doubling time is constant. This is not a question of philosophy but only of the data. What does the data show? If we had a stack of COMPUTER SHOPPER magazines for the past twenty years the question could be decided in short order. The drop in doubling time starts out very slowly. That is why it is not obvious yet. By the time it becomes obvious it will be too late. Mike Deering. www.SingularityActionGroup.com ---new website.
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
It is obvious that no one on this list agrees with me. This does not mean = that I am obviously wrong. The division is very simple. My position: the doubling time has been reducing and will continue to do s= o. Their position: the doubling time is constant. It is incredibly unlikely that the doubling time is constant. But whatever the data show, as Ben says, it is impossible that the decrease in doubling time can continue ad infinitum. It will approach various asymptotic limits as defined by technology and market pressures (noone is going to spend billions in RD to make computers that cost $.05) and eventually by the laws of physics themselves as we approach the atomic and quantum scales. We will not have $10, 20 ghz, computers in 3 years. This is not a question of philosophy but only of the data. What does the d= ata show? If we had a stack of COMPUTER SHOPPER magazines for the past tw= enty years the question could be decided in short order. The drop in doubl= ing time starts out very slowly. That is why it is not obvious yet. By th= e time it becomes obvious it will be too late. Mike Deering. www.SingularityActionGroup.com---new website. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscri= ption,=20 please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2D67C.E8727860 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3Dtext/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1 META content=3DMSHTML 6.00.2800.1126 name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=3D#ff DIVFONT face=3DArialIt is obvious that no one on this list agrees with= =20 me.nbsp; This does not mean that I am obviously wrong.nbsp; The division = is=20 very simple./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArialMy position:nbsp; the doubling time has been reduc= ing and=20 will continue to do so./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArialTheir position:nbsp; the doubling time is=20 constant./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArialThis is not a question of philosophy but only of th= e=20 data.nbsp; What does the data show?nbsp; If we had a stack of COMPUTER=20 SHOPPERnbsp; magazines for the past twenty years the question could be dec= ided=20 in short order.nbsp; The drop in doubling time starts out very slowly.nbs= p;=20 That is why it is not obvious yet.nbsp; By the time it becomes obvious it = will=20 be too late./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArialMike Deering./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArialA=20 href=3Dhttp://www.SingularityActionGroup.com;www.SingularityActionGroup.c= om/Anbsp;nbsp;nbsp;=20 lt;---new website./FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML --=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2D67C.E8727860-- --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
I know this topic is already beaten to death in previous discussions, but I'll throw out one more point after reading that we may already have the equivalent power of some 3000 minds in raw CPU available worldwide. The aggregate neural mass of the world's population of insects and animals are probably at least an order of magnitude greater than that of humanity(and this using processing units literally identical to our own, no uncomfortable assumptions of computational equivalence are involved). And yet they aren't the ones building spaceships. Putting processing power to good, effective use is a *hard* problem. Also, integrating the power of multiple units is another hard problem. I don't recall the figure, but the vast majority of the brain is interconnective tissue. Networking hardware scales nonlinearly with the number of processing units. Even if you had sole dominion of those millions of desktop units and the perfect AGI software to run on them, the bandwidth bottleneck would make the thing unusable. -Brad --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Mike Deering wrote: It is obvious that no one on this list agrees with me. This does not mean that I am obviously wrong. The division is very simple. My position: the doubling time has been reducing and will continue to do so. Ray Kurzweil agrees with you and has data at his web site. My own data series is based upon manufacturer benchmark postings at the spec.org web site. Because Moore's law is a management principle, I concede that Intel could skip lithography generations and move much faster than their roadmap. But I think that Moore's law is an economic optimum for Intel which forestalls competition by making current generations of their product line obsolete on a controlled schedule. I do not see AMD or IBM or anyone else (the Chinese) making Intel move any faster. Should evidence of AGI progress become manifest say by 2010, then I believe military orders will accelerate the pace as they did at the earliest stage of semiconductor technology. -Steve Their position: the doubling time is constant. This is not a question of philosophy but only of the data. What does the data show? If we had a stack of COMPUTER SHOPPER magazines for the past twenty years the question could be decided in short order. The drop in doubling time starts out very slowly. That is why it is not obvious yet. By the time it becomes obvious it will be too late. Mike Deering. www.SingularityActionGroup.com---new website. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- === Stephen L. Reed phone: 512.342.4036 Cycorp, Suite 100 fax: 512.342.4040 3721 Executive Center Drive email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, TX 78731 web: http://www.cyc.com download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org === --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Also, integrating the power of multiple units is another hard problem. I don't recall the figure, but the vast majority of the brain is interconnective tissue. Networking hardware scales nonlinearly with the number of processing units. Even if you had sole dominion of those millions of desktop units and the perfect AGI software to run on them, the bandwidth bottleneck would make the thing unusable. -Brad This is partly true... The Novamente architecture in particular requires a central core that consists either of a supercomputer or a tightly-connected cluster of machines. However, it can also make use of a huge periphery of millions of desktop units, to carry out certain easily-distributable, important, processing-intensive tasks (e.g. pattern analysis and procedure learning based on already-known data). -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Brad Wyble wrote: Also, integrating the power of multiple units is another hard problem. I don't recall the figure, but the vast majority of the brain is interconnective tissue. Networking hardware scales nonlinearly with the number of processing units. Even if you had sole dominion of those millions of desktop units and the perfect AGI software to run on them, the bandwidth bottleneck would make the thing unusable. I've thought about how to connect the tens of thousands of OpenCyc downloads effectively and currently favor a super-peer approach. www-db.stanford.edu/~byang/pubs/superpeer.pdf I believe that a hierarchical goal based system could minimize bandwidth between distant levels while maximizing bandwidth among cooperating task peers. -Steve -- === Stephen L. Reed phone: 512.342.4036 Cycorp, Suite 100 fax: 512.342.4040 3721 Executive Center Drive email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, TX 78731 web: http://www.cyc.com download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org === --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] doubling time revisted.
entry level computers are now game-consoles and mobile-phones with fast chips for speech and games. i see 5 chip/cpu-types: 1. classical cpus 2. cell and XXP 3. special vision and grafic chips 4. networking chips 5. memory with additional processing only 1. and 5. are increasing slowly, but 2.-4. are increasing much faster. What do i need for my agish development: - One fast cpu with large cache, 64 bit and very large memory. - And many high-speed-connected chips (XXP or Cell) with low latency connections. (Sorry internet-p2p doesnt work) with 2x increased classical cpu-power i coordinate 4x-8x networked cpus. cu Alex At 13:12 17.02.03 -0500, Ben wrote: There are two issues here... 1) I think the rate of decrease time of entry-level computer price may be increasing ... i.e. in your terms "the doubling time has been reducing". I think you're overestimating the rate of increase of the rate of decrease, though... 2) I think you overestimate the effect of cheaper entry level computers on AGI progress. The effect is substantial but not THAT substantial, in my view... Ben G
Re: [agi] doubling time revisted.
Stephen Reed said: Suppose that 30-50 thousand state of the art computers are equivalent to the brain's processing power (using Moravec's assumptions). If global desktop computer system sales are in the neighborhood of 130 million units, then we have the computer processing equivalent of 2,600 human brains should they all somehow be linked together. That means with 6 billion people in the world we have the installed capcity of humans equivalent to between 180,000,000,000,000 and 300,000,000,000,000state of the art computers. Cheers, Philip --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
