= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - 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 (210)
As a Foom skeptic, what would convince me of taking the concept seriously, is an argument that intelligence/power is a quantity that we reason with in the same way as we reason about the number of neutrons in a nuclear reactor/bomb. Power seems like a slippery ephemeral concept, optimisation power appears to be able evaporate at the drop of a hat (if someone comes to know an opponents source code and can emulate them entirely).
The computation is not a "pure process", it has its physical side and this may be used as a matter transformer by some software. There from a FOOM might appear.
I asked that Eliezer Yudkowsky in the questions for him, but nearly nobody noticed by vote it up.
Hang on, I voted this up because it was a good point but on second glance it isn't a point that is at all relevant to what whpearson is asking.