Hi Brent,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<br>
</div></blockquote>
Michael. Is your ordering important? In other words, for you, is this the most important argument compared to the others? If so, I would agree that this is the most important argument compared to the others.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>It wasn't meant to be, but I think copying is really important, yes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
I would also include the ability to fully concentrate 100% of the time. We seem to be required to do more than just one thing, and to play, have sex... a lot. In addition to sleeping. But all of these, at best, are linear differences, and can be overcome by having 2 or 10... times more people working on a particular problem</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There may be second-order benefits from being able to concentrate longer. To get from one node of an argument or problem to another might require a certain amount of sustained attention, for instance. Any idea requiring longer than 20 or so hours of sustained continuous attention would be inaccessible to humanity. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I probably don't fully understand what you mean by this one. To me, all computer power we've created so for is only because we can utilize / absorb / or benefit from all of it, at least as much as any other computer would.</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I mean integrating it directly into its brain. For instance, imagining me doubling the amount of processing power in my retina and visual cortex, allowing me to see a much wider range of patterns and detail in the world, just because I chose to add more computing power to it. Or imagine giving more computing power to the concept-manipulating parts of the brain that surely exist but are only understood on a moderate level today. It's hard to say how important it is until we try, but the ability to add computing power directly to the brain is something no animal has ever had, so it's definitely something interesting and potentially important.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
6. constructed from scratch with self-improvement in mind<br>
</blockquote>
Possibly true but not implied.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
7. the possibility of direct integration with new sensory modalities,<br>
like a codic modality<br>
</blockquote>
True, but not unique, the human brain can also integrate with new<br>
sensory modalities, this has been tested.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
What is 'codic modality'? We have significant diversity of knowledge representation abilities as compared to the mere ones and zeros of computers. I.E. we represent wavelengths of visible light with different colors, wavelengths of acoustic vibrations with sound, hotness/coldness for different temperatures, and so on. And we have great abilities to map new problem spaces into these very capable representation systems as can be seen by all the progress in field of scientific data representation / visualization.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I hazard to say it's not the same as having a modality custom-crafted for the specific niche. We can map all this great stuff, but in something that requires skill and getting it right the first time, it's not the same as having the neural hardware. Really spectacular martial artists probably have "better" motor cortex than us in some ways. Parkinson's patients have a "worse" substantia negra that leads to pathology. Really good artists probably have slightly "better" brain sections corresponding to visualizing images. These variations take place entirely within the space of human possibilities, and they're still substantial. Imagine neurobiological differences going significantly beyond the human norm. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I admit that the initial speed difference is huge. But I agree with Alan that we make up with parallelism and many other things, what we lack in speed. And, we already seem to be at the limit of hardware speed - i.e. CPU speed has not significantly changed in the last 10 years right?</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It has: </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth</a></div><div><br></div><div>Of course, people have different opinions based on what they're trying to sell, but by and large Moore's law has kept going:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/31/5012834-researchers-rescue-moores-law">http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/31/5012834-researchers-rescue-moores-law</a></div><div><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/nvidia-vp-says-moores-law-is-dead/">http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/nvidia-vp-says-moores-law-is-dead/</a></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I would agree that a copy-able human level AI would launch a take-off, leaving what we have today, to the degree that it is unchanged, in the dust. But I don't think acheiving this is going to be anything like spontaneous, as you seem to assume is possible. The rate of progress of intelligence is so painfully slow. So slow, in fact, that many have accused great old AI folks like Minsky as being completely mistaken.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There's a huge difference between the rate of progress between today and human-level AGI and the time between human-level AGI and superintelligent AGI. They're completely different questions. As for a fast rate, would you still be skeptical if the AGI in question had access to advanced molecular manufacturing?</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br><a href="mailto:michael.anissimov@singinst.org" target="_blank">michael.anissimov@singinst.org</a><br><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><div>Singularity Institute<br>
</div><div>Media Director</div></span><br>