= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Free research help, editing and article downloads for LessWrong - 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 (439)
Well, to be fair, his timeline also turned out to be pretty wrong - the Internet took longer to get going than he thought, and obviously a UIM didn't show up in 1993 or 1994. If it's only in the 201x or 202x that the issues have been thoroughly discussed, then it's all of a piece.
(I liked his discussion of the 'just unplug the power plug' strategy.)
Given that Good's 1970 paper is the second substantive analysis (after Good 1965) of some implications of machine superintelligence, it's odd that "Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import" (2012) will end up being the first article to cite it for its discussion of machine superintelligence. The paper was briefly famous for letting slip some details of his secret WWII work with Turing, while its discussion of machine superintelligence and its proposal for an association to discuss the implications of machine superintelligence (Singularity Institute, anyone?) fell into the void.
Really? I noticed it mentioned some computing machine they used in the taxonomy of generations but I had no idea it was a secret. How weird that seems in this day where all the secrets of Bletchley Park are known...