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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
