= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Humans are not automatically strategic - 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 (266)
We who are the first intelligences ever to exist ... our tiny little brains at the uttermost dawn of mind ... as awkward as the first replicator (2:01 in).
Selection pressure might be even weaker a lot of the time than a 3% fitness advantage having a 6% chance of becoming universal in the gene pool, or at least it's more complicated-- a lot of changes don't offer a stable advantage over long periods.
I think natural selection and human intelligence at this point can't really be compared for strength. Each is doing things that the other can't-- afaik, we don't know how to deliberately create organisms which can outcompete their wild conspecifics. (Or is it just that there's no reason to try and/or we have too much sense to do the experiments?)
And we certainly don't know how to deliberately design a creature which could thrive in the wild, though some animals which have been selectively bred for human purposes do well as ferals.
This point may be a nitpick since it doesn't address how far human intelligence can go.
Another example of attribution error: Why would Gimli think that Galadriel is beautiful?
Eliezer made a very interesting claim-- that current hardware is sufficient for AI. Details?
To be fair, the races of Middle-Earth weren't created by evolution, so the criticism isn't fully valid. Ilúvatar gave the dwarves spirits but set them to sleep so that they wouldn't awaken before the elves. It's not unreasonable to assume that as he did so, he also made them admire elven beauty.