= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge - 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 (369)
I was going to give a formal definition¹ but then I noticed you said either way. Assume that 1 and 2 are the definition of FOOM: that is a possible event, and that it is the end of everything. I challenge you to substantiate your claim of "ridiculous", as formally as you can.
Do note that I will be unimpressed with "anything defined by 1 and 2 is ridiculous". Asteroid strikes and rapid climate change are two non-ridiculous concepts that satisfy the definition given by 1 and 2.
¹. And here it is: FOOM is the concept that self-improvement is cumulative and additive and possibly fast. Let X be an agent's intelligence, and let X + f(X) = X^ be the function describing that agent's ability to improve its intelligence (where f(X) is the improvement generated by an intelligence of X, and X^ is the intelligence of the agent post-improvement). If X^ > X, and X^ + f(X^) evaluates to X^^, and X^^ > X^, the agent is said to be a recursively self-improving agent. If X + f(X) evaluates in a short period of time, the agent is said to be a FOOMing agent.
Ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. Probably the biggest red flag was that there was no mention of what was supposedly going to be annihilated - and yes, it does make a difference.
The supposedly formal definition tells me very little - because "short" is not defined - and because f(X) is not a specified function. Saying that it evaluates to something positive is not sufficient to be useful or meaningful.
Fast enough that none of the other intelligences in Earth can copy its strengths or produce countermeasures sufficient to stand a chance in opposing it.
Yes - though it is worth noting that if Google wins, we may have passed that point without knowing it back in 1998 sometime.