= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - 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 (218)
If we are constructing a survey of AI-singularity thinking here, I would like to know more about the opinions of Hugo de Garis. And what Bill Joy is thinking these days?
If we are trying to estimate probabilities and effect multipliers, I would like to consider the following question: Consider the projected trajectory of human technological progress without AGI assistance. For example: controlled fusion by 2140, human lifespan doubles by 2200, self-sustaining human presence on asteroids and/or Jovian satelites by 2260, etc. How much would that rate of progress be speeded if we had the assistance of AGI intelligence with 10x human speed and memory capacity? 100x? 1000x?
I conjecture that these speed-ups would be much less than people here seem to expect, and that the speed-up difference between 100x and 100,000x would be small. Intelligence may be much less important than many people think.
A recent update from Hugo here. He has retired - but says he has one more book on machine intelligence to go.
Thx. From that interview:
Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't share Goertzel's optimism either. But then I don't buy into that "destiny" stuff, either. We don't have to destroy ourselves and the planet in this way. It is definitely not impossible, but super-human AGI is also not inevitable.
I'd be curious to hear from EY, and the rest of the "anti-death" brigade here, what they think of de Garis's prognosis and whether and how they think an "artilect war" can be avoided.
I'm not sure that's where the burden of proof should fall. Has de Garis justified his claim? It sounds more like storytelling than inferential forecasting to me.
I really like your comments and wish you would make some top level posts and also contact me online. Could you please do so?
Where shall I contact you?
I haven't read his book, etc., but I suspect that "storytelling" might be a reasonable characterization. On the other hand, my "I'd be curious" was hardly an attempt to create a burden of proof.
I do personally believe that convincing mankind that an FAI singularity is desirable will be a difficult task, and that many sane individuals might consider a unilateral and secret decision to FOOM as a casus belli. What would you do as Israeli PM if you received intelligence that an Iranian AI project would likely go FOOM sometime within the next two months?
It's just silly. Luddites have never had much power - and aren't usually very war like.
Instead, we will see expanded environmental and green movements, more anti-GM activism - demands to tax the techno-rich more - and so on.
Degaris was just doing much the same thing that SIAI is doing now - making a song-and-dance about THE END OF THE WORLD - in order to attract attention to himself - and so attract funding - so he could afford to get on with building his machines.
I don't think you can say. Different things will accelerate at different rates. For example, a dog won't build a moon rocket in a million years - but if you make it 10 times smarter, it might do that pretty quickly.