= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Demands for Particular Proof: Appendices - 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 (60)
A thought on nanotechnology: considering that biological cells already have most of the capabilities of molecular nanotechnology, and that said cells have been undergoing natural selection for over a billion years, if something better were possible, it probably would have evolved by now. For example, I'd be very surprised if somebody one day makes a machine that's significantly better at protein synthesis than a ribosome is. I suspect that future nanotechnology will look a lot like today's biological systems.
I don't necessarily disagree but couldn't you say the same thing about brains and intelligence?
/me shrugs
Brains have been around for far less time than cells.
I guess. I'm not sure we can justify drawing that arbitrary line just because we want novelty in synthetic intelligence but little novelty in protein production. And I don't really think 2 billion more years of evolution is going to produce they kind of intelligences most people around here are expecting to see in the next couple hundred years.
Part of the reason people like the prospects for better intelligence is that we can identify really obvious ways in which our's could be improved. I wonder if there are systematic errors made in cellular mechanics.
And in particular, there's good reason to believe that brains are still evolving at a decent pace, where it looks like cell mechanisms largely settled a long while back.