[ExI] AI Motivation revisited

[Samantha Atkins]

On 06/30/2011 06:53 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> On 06/29/2011 11:46 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>>> Stefano, your argument is fine .... except that you have neglected 
>>> to notice that I was talking about whether a PC could simulate a 
>>> mind "in real time".  In other words, from the very beginning I have 
>>> been talking about anything EXCEPT the universal computation issue!
>>>
>>> I never disputed whether a tinkertoy or a bunch of marbles running 
>>> in a maze (or a Searlean idiot locked up in a room with pieces of 
>>> paper being passed under the door) could simulate a mind .... hey, 
>>> no problem:  all of these things could simulate a mind if programmed 
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> All I cared about was whether a PC could do it in real time.  In 
>>> other words, fast enough to keep up with a human.
>>
>> Did you present you argument for operation throughput of the  brain  
>> and show that that the same operation throughput can be done on a 
>> PC?  If you did I missed it.    If the PC cannot match the brain on 
>> operation throughput then I don't see how you can say it is possible 
>> for a PC to keep up with a human across all general intelligence tasks.
>
> You come into the middle of an argument and, not having understood the 
> thread, you imply that I said something that I did not, then imply 
> that I was negligent in not properly justifying the thing that I did 
> not say.
>
> Nice try.  ;-)
>

I saw you say something that seemed to me very much like this.  Do not 
waste my time implying that I am playing games with you.  It was a 
serious question.  If this is not what you said then what is your claim 
exactly?  I did read back and saw not only the above but things like the 
below before I asked the above question you just wave away.

"The point is that there are choices here.  My own work tends to 
indicate that something around the cortical column level of 
functionality would be sufficient for most of the processing.  Now, if 
that were true then an AGI could very well be built using something 
within an order of magnitude of a current PC.

I don't think anyone pays sufficient atention to this little issue.  
Does anyone reading this post truly realize that the implication is that 
if cortical columns are the relevant functional level, and if someone 
figured out what the functionality is, that means someone could build an 
AGI that would fit in (probably) a single server rack, and do so by the 
end of the year...?  "

That sounds like a pretty substantial claim to me.  So in what way am I 
putting words in your mouth?

- samantha


- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110701/c58e93f9/attachment.html>