[ExI] Oxford scientists edge toward quantum PC with 10b qubits.
spike66 at att.net
Thu Feb 3 23:44:11 UTC 2011
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:24 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Oxford scientists edge toward quantum PC with 10b qubits.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> Tried that: started with an insect level AI, scaled it up. Ended up with
a simulation of a huge pile of bugs.
>So simulate yourself fixing bugs. ;)
Tried that: didn't work either. The huge pile of simulated bugs were
smarter than me. They first devoured my avatar. Then they devoured each
>From that failed exercise, I figured out the way to go however. Instead of
starting with insect level AI and scale it up, I would start out with a
me-level AI and scale that up. Reason: I am not all that great a coder. I
can do it, but I suck. In debugging code, I am not all that far above
insect level AI.
It's a challenge. I am really good at writing bugs, but haven't yet figured
out how to write a software simulation of my intelligence. If I ever do, I
will write an AI simulated spike, then have it rewrite itself better, then
have that new simulated spike do all the work. While it is at that, I will
have it write a new sim-spike to have fun watching the other sim-spike work.
I did learn something else interesting. If I attempt to write a really
simple minded routine, such as a prime number generator, I can write that
code without any bugs in it. But if I write something complicated, such as
my latest digital guidance and control scheme, that routine is full of bugs.
So now my strategy is this: instead of writing a simple insect-level AI, I
will write a really complicated sophisticated transpike or spike+ algorithm,
even if it has lotsa bugs. Then I will make it debug itself. When it is
finished debugging itself, I will make it scale itself up.
More information about the extropy-chat