[ExI] Hard Takeoff-money

[Keith Henson]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:00 AM,  John Grigg
<possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brent Allsop wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>
> Michael Annisimov replied:
> 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?
>
> I agree that self-improving AGI with access to advanced manufacturing
> and research facilities would probably be able to bootstrap itself at
> an exponential rate, rather than the speed at which humans created it
> in the first place.  But the "classic scenario" where this happens
> within minutes, hours or even days and months seems very doubtful in
> my view.
>
> Am I missing something here?

What does an AI mainly need?  Processing power and storage.  If there
are vast amounts of both that can be exploited, then all you need is a
storage estimate for the AI and the average bandwidth between storage
locations to determine the replication rate.

Human memory is thought to be in the few hundreds of M bytes.  How
long does it take to copy a G byte over the net nowadays?

BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Keith Henson  wrote:

snip

>> So if you later wonder how the AIs cornered the world's capital, I
>> mentioned it first. ?:-)
>
> Won't happen until the Singularity, when all bets are off anyway.
>
> The point of these trading programs is to assist in making a few
> people very, very rich and the great majority poor and unemployed.
> Working great so far.

I can easily see a disgruntled programmer writing this as retaliation
against a hated boss.

> (But surely the burning torches and pitchforks can't be far away, can they?).

That is _so_ 17th century.  Surely you can think of something better.

Keith