= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
zero_call comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Ask Your Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (682)
Irrelevant. Timescale of human evolution is far, far longer than the projections for AI development. For all intensive purposes, it has stopped.
Furthermore, even though evolution may not have stopped, I think it is obvious that it has changed (or selection pressures) changed so much that its modern implications are unclear.
"Intents and purposes".
It is irrelevant to us. It is highly relevant to your claims in the previous post.
The reason we care about whether evolution has stopped is that we care how significant the level of current human intelligence is. So yes, the current level is very significant in that it can be determined given only what century it is; that doesn't mean it's significant in that it's likely that self-improving artificial intelligence will hit a snag there.