gwern comments on Slowing Moore's Law: Why You Might Want To and How You Would Do It - Less Wrong

22 Post author: gwern 10 March 2012 04:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (90)
Tags: singularity coordination economics existential_risk

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 19 October 2012 03:11:50PM 0 points [-]

Yes, I've pointed out most of those as reasons effective regulation would not be done (especially in China).

Comment author: Epiphany 26 October 2012 01:38:46AM *  0 points [-]

Oh, sorry about that! After this dawned on me, I just kind of skimmed the rest and the subtitle "The China question" did not trigger a blip on my "you must read this before posting that idea" radar.

What did you think of my ideas for slowing Moore's law?

Comment author: gwern 26 October 2012 01:55:27AM 2 points [-]
  • Patents is a completely unworkable idea.
  • Convincing programmers might work, if we think very few programmers or AI researchers are the ones making actual progress. Herding programmers is like herding cats, so this works only in proportion to how many key coders there are - if you need to convince more than, say, 100,000, I don't think it would work.
  • PR nightmare seems to be the same thing.
  • Winning the race is a reasonable idea but I'm not sure the dynamic actually works that way: someone wanting to produce and sell an AI period might be discouraged by an open-source AI, but a FLOSS AI would just be catnip to anyone who wants to throw it on a supercomputer and make $$$.
Comment author: Epiphany 26 October 2012 05:21:26AM -1 points [-]

I wish this was on the idea comment rather than over here... I'm sorry but I think I will have to relocate my response to you by putting it on the other thread where my comment is. This is because discussing it here will result in a bunch of people jumping into the conversation on this thread when the comment we're talking about is on a different thread. So, for the sake of keeping it organized, my response to you regarding the feasibility of convincing programmers to refuse risky AI jobs is on the other thread.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit