Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past

Eugen Leitl eugen at
Mon Oct 10 15:29:29 UTC 2005

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

> Oh, you could try that approach, but I don't think it's going to work.

My approach worked at least once (we're soaking in it), yours hasn't so far.

> (Which is just as well, because you can't put Friendliness into brute force
> evolution.)

It also happened at least once (though it's not very friendly, admittedly).
I don't think Friendliness exists. It is not a well-defined property
to start with, so you can't gauge conservation over system evolution.

Is it worthwhile to try for a friendly system? Sure, if you can make it so.
But, I'm not holding my breath. It's too strangling a constraint, and
a seed is already hard as is.
> Well, my prediction is that we _won't_ see a human equivalent by 2015,
> however hard I try to prove myself wrong :)

What I meant, there won't be hardware equivalents of a human CNS,
regardless by which metric.
> That depends, but if you think you can talk a manufacturer into building
> hardware like that, please go for it!

Unfortunately, this is beyond ASIC budget. Way beyond ASIC budget.
This could easily ruin a major manufacturer, so nobody is going
to try until prototyping costs fall due to desktop nanoelectronics
fabs (which won't be there by 2015, not even by 2025).

Eugen* Leitl <a href="">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820  
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list