[ExI] Destructive uploading.

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Thu Sep 8 07:04:56 UTC 2011

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:06:55PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > Above is probably too compressed to make much sense, unless you are me.
> > It does make sense though, honest. I can expand, if necessary.
> Given the topic, "unless you are me" is quite ironic.  However much it
> did/does make sense may be a measure of how much we're distant in
> history and programming.

I'm intimately familiar with conventional computing. What I tried
to describe is that this is nothing like conventional computing, 
but much closer to physics. The next-best thing would be
chip design, FPGA programming and HPC, but even then it's
not really close.
> > How can you afford it? People will eat your lunch.
> So you plan to spend all your resource to run a primary (or solitary)
> instance with the hope of keeping ahead of the 'competition'?  Because

I plan to continue doing the equivalent to do what I'm doing: continue 
to be able to pay my bills by offering services I can bill other people, 
loosely. In order to be able to do that I can't just sit there sifting
sand by the seashore, orelse I would no longer be able to afford
food, clothing, shelter, and other basics. I would become dependent
on charity of others by own choice, which is not something I want to do.

Of course you could go off to parts remote and do the equivalent of
subsistence farming, but that, also, is not my goal. 

So there are many options, including sitting down on a seashore
watching waves until a dragon comes along, and eats you.

> you're right, the native machine intelligences don't have all the

You might notice that there is no native machine intelligence.
It might be well be that biologically-derived intelligence 
is much easier to do than doing artificial Darwin on a
very large scale, seeded with educated guess individuals
(which, you get it, are most likely biologically inspired,
but grown from a seed using morphogenetic processes making
direct use of crystalline computation, rather than emulating
squishiness by way of crystalline computation, which would 
be a dog).

> baggage evolution have left us and they'll eat both of our lunches.  I

Competition will continue, and there continue to be losers.

> imagine that my lunch will be of so little consequence resource-wise
> that it won't be worthwhile for the big dogs to cross the junkyard to
> take my scraps.  I may be abnormal in my acceptance of having so

In a mature situation, the physical layer is saturated. One place
is no different from other, and it's full. In order to keep occupying
you must be competitive.

> little consequence in the big picture.

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list