= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Intelligence explosion in organizations, or why I'm not worried about the singularity - 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 (187)
It's like the post here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/w5/cascades_cycles_insight/
It's highly unlikely a company will be able to get >1.
To me, that just sounds like confusion about the relationship between genetic and psychological evolution.
Um > 1 what. It's easy to make irrefutable predictions when what you say is vague and meaningless.
The point of the article is that if the recursion can work on itself more than a certain amount, then each new insight allows for more insights, as in the case of uranium for a nuclear bomb. > 1 refers to the average amount of improvement that an AGI that is foom-ing can gain from an insight.
What I was trying to say is the factor for corporations is much less than 1, which makes it different from an AGI. (To see this effect, try plugging in .9^x in a calculator, then 1.1^x)