[ExI] Did Hugo de Garis leave the field?
rpwl at lightlink.com
Mon Apr 18 13:59:54 UTC 2011
Ben Zaiboc wrote:
> I was disappointed to read this:
> "Ask yourself how itâ€™s possible for a creature of a given
> intelligence level to be able to design a creature of greater
> intelligence. Designing a creature of superior intelligence requires
> a level of intelligence that the designer simply does not have.
> Therefore, it is logically impossible to use the traditional
> blueprint-design approach to create a creature of superior
> So it's 'logically impossible', because designing a creature of
> superior intelligence requires a level of intelligence that the
> designer simply does not have??
> Answering the question with a simple "No", with no actual reason
> given, other than "because it's impossible", is not acceptable. He's
> saying "just because".
> The best you can say is "I don't know". There is absolutely no proof
> that a given intelligence can't design a superior one. I expect most
> of the people reading this could think of at least one way of
> increasing their own intelligence, if we only had the tools. I can
> think of 3 without even trying, and I'm far from very bright.
> The other disturbing thing about the article is the assumption that
> if you don't understand every detail about how something works, you
> shouldn't use it. Not to mention the implicit assumption that just
> because you use an evolutionary algorithm to design something, it's
> *inherently* non-understandable.
I agree completely. I can think of many ways to boost the intelligence
beyond human level, so Hugo's comment is outright silly.
More information about the extropy-chat