= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BenRayfield comments on Hedging our Bets: The Case for Pursuing Whole Brain Emulation to Safeguard Humanity's Future - 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)
Comments (244)
These "Whole Brain Emulation" discussions are surreal for me. I think someone needs to put forward the best case they can find that human brain emulations have much of a chance of coming before engineered machine intelligence.
The efforts in that direction I have witnessed so far seem feeble and difficult to take seriously - while the case that engineered machine intelligence will come first seems very powerful to me.
Without such a case, why spend so much time and energy on a discussion of what-if?
Why do you consider the possibility of smarter than Human AI at all? The difference between the AI we have now and that is bigger than the difference between those 2 technologies you are comparing.
I don't understand why you are bothering asking your question - but to give a literal answer, my interest in synthesising intelligent agents is an offshoot of my interest in creating living things - which is an interest I have had for a long time and share with many others. Machine intelligence is obviously possible - assuming you have a materialist and naturalist world-view like mine.
I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was your goal to prove that instead of you thought it would not be proven. My question does not make sense.
Thanks for clarifying!