Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 10 02:16:41 UTC 2005
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/05 5:46 PM, "Dirk Bruere" <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by
> > That, IMO, is Human Level processing power.
> If we are going to use such a lazy and ambiguous definition of
> "machine", we've had 10 petaflop machines for quite a while already.
Yeah, the Moore's Law prediction of 2025 only holds to a $2000 desktop
PC, not to laboratory machines would could reach human level much
sooner. Hardware doesn't mean jack if you can't teach it to teach
itself, and have the resources to just let it run doing its own thing.
Most facilities that build such laboratory machines expect them to do
some paying work drudgery.
> And asserting that any such thing is "human-level processing power"
> suggests that you have far more information than you do.
That is nothing new.
> If you could make that assertion authoritatively, you could also
> produce an AI to demonstrate the point.
But isn't that assuming too much? AI 'researchers' can by anybody,
because nobody but a posthuman entity is qualified to judge the
validity of the work of even the most credible fraud. The record to
date shows that all AI researchers are therefore frauds.
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
More information about the extropy-chat