<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Anders Sandberg </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I think Eliezer has a relevant point: he is concerned that "Human
neural intelligence is not that complicated and current algorithms
are touching on keystone, foundational aspects of it." - i.e. we may
have found a general tool in deep learning that reduces the "to do"
list of AGI by at least one line (out of an unknown number). <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I also think Eliezer makes a good point (and wish he was still on the list) but the number of lines in the brain's master algorithm is not *completely* unknown, we can put a upper limit on how big it could be on it. Ray Kurzweil says:</div> </font></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(251,254,255)"><i><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div>The amount of information in the genome (after lossless compression, which is feasible because of the massive redundancy in the genome) is about 50 million bytes (down from 800 million bytes in the uncompressed genome)<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">".</div></i></span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(251,254,255)"><i><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></i></span></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font>We also know that only 40% of the genome deals with the brain so that gets us down to 20 million bytes; that would be a big program but not bigger than some that people have already written. And most of that 20 million bytes must be about basic biologic functions and how neurons and Glial cells can stay alive rather than the all important seed algorithm that allows us to learn. So the master algorithm must be smaller than 20 million bytes and probably a lot smaller.</font></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>More practically I think the Wired article gets things right: this
is a big deal commercially. Solving tricky value functions is worth
money</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"></font></div><font size="4">Yes, and big money means more competition, and more competition means more progress.<br></font> <font size="4"><br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>if they do generalize to hand-eye coordination, then we
will have a practical robot revolution.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">When that happens it seems to me many if not most most economic textbooks would be rendered obsolete.</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark </div> </font></div><div><br></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div></div></div></div>