= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on The Curve of Capability - 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 (264)
I saw a discussion somewhere with a link to a CPU design researcher discussing the level of innovation required to press that "make a new CPU design" button, and how much of the time is spent waiting for compiler results and bug testing new designs.
I'm getting confused trying to remember it off the top of my head, but here are some links to what I could dig up with a quick search.
Anyway I haven't reread the whole discussion but the weak inside view seems to be that speeding up humans would not be quite as big of a gap as the outside view predicts--of course with a half dozen caveats that mean a FOOM could still happen. soreff's comment below also seems related.
As long as nontrivial human reasoning is a necessary part of the process, even if it's a small part, the process as a whole will stay at least somewhat "anchored" to a human-tractable time scale. Progress can't speed up past human comprehension as long as human comprehension is required for progress. If the human bottleneck goes away there's no guarantee that other bottlenecks will always conveniently appear in the right places to have the same effect.
I agree, but that is a factual and falsifiable claim that can be tested (albeit only in very weak ways) by looking at where current research is most bottlenecked by human comprehension.