[ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 20 22:22:24 UTC 2019

It's just a hunch but based on the fact that in general the results of
intelagent design tend to be more efficient and less buggy than random
mutation and natural selection, and much much faster. Evolution is an
incredibly clumsy slow and cruel process but until it invented brains it
was the only way to make complex objects.

 John K Clark

I had hoped that you would reply that certain features of humans and their
brain workings had prompted you to suspect that errors were made in
designing our brains, such as the cognitive errors like confirmation bias
and correlation as causation.  I have no doubt that what DNA produces is a
cobbled together apparatus, sometimes with major errors, such as our immune
system attacking our bodies.  I do not have the knowledge to challenge your
statement that intelligent design produces fewer errors than DNA, but it
does seem that much software is extremely buggy.  Look at the other
discussion by Stewart angry with MS and Windows. Thousands of programmers
putting out one defective product after another.

bill w

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 3:42 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

> I completely agree.  What a great, educational post.
> I had the same inspiring thoughts John was describing.
> Thanks
> Brent Allsop
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:12 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet
>> clear. Really really good.
>> > *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct,
>>> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order
>>> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.*
>> Damn, I wish I'd said that!
>>> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the  human brain
>>> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of  synapses it is
>>> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human  brain.*
>> I doubt a computer would  need a million times more synapses to beat us
>> at all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal
>> in our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the
>> informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light.
>> And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are
>> organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain
>> are.
>> A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain
>> is over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African
>> Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as
>> deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact
>> that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when
>> there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature
>> couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead
>> of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it
>> already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll
>> bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a
>> birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one
>> wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be
>> ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more
>> elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand
>> kludges.
>>> * > Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25
>>> years.  But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.*
>> I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally
>> surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a
>> singularity to be surprised.
>>> *> On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to
>>> disrupt everything,  *
>> There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots
>> of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of
>> all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is
>> trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It
>> may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in
>> the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could
>> surprise us.
>>> * > Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote
>>> Yoda,  "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."*
>> Predicting is hard, especially the future.
>> John K Clark
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190720/985e9cc5/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list