FiftyTwo comments on Open Thread, February 1-14, 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 February 2013 08:26AM

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

Comments (282)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 02 February 2013 06:48:20PM 4 points [-]

The Human Brain Project seems to have garnered some media attention recently. None of it particularly deep or informative, what are your thoughts?

Comment author: woodside 05 February 2013 10:38:19AM *  1 point [-]

1 billion dollars earmarked for whole brain simulation makes it seem a lot more likely that we'll brute force a naive version of AI well before we have the ability to prove any kind of friendliness. If that AI is seeded by the simulated brain of an actual human though... who knows. I'd like to think that if it were my brain and at some point I became singularity-scale intelligent that I wouldn't create a horrible future for humanity (by our present day perspective) but it's pretty hard to claim that with any confidence.

Comment author: Plasmon 05 February 2013 01:16:45PM 1 point [-]

They are very careful to not mention certain things in their video: nothing involving the computational nature of the human identity / "consciousness". Nothing we would call "whole brain emulation".

I have little doubt that what they choose to mention, and what they choose not to mention, in their video is driven more by signalling considerations than by what they consider to be technologically (in)feasible. Can they do what they claim? Create a model of the human brain detailed enough to obtain non-trivial information about brain diseases and computational processes used in the brain, but coarse enough to not have moral implications? Of course I do not know the answer to this question.

Kurzweil, who is widely agreed to be rather optimistic in his predictions, predicts

By the mid 2020s, it is conservative to conclude that we will have effective models of the whole brain

Comment author: FiftyTwo 05 February 2013 11:58:53PM 0 points [-]

They seem t be purposefully dodging talking about moral significance of the simulated brain, which is worrying...

Comment author: Plasmon 06 February 2013 10:05:08AM 2 points [-]

Mentioning it would pattern-match to "science fiction" rather than "serious research" in the intended audience's minds. It would cost them credibility.

Comment author: gwern 06 February 2013 12:33:51AM 1 point [-]

IIRC, the Nature or Ars Technica article mentioned that something like 1% of the funds will be going to ethicists and philosophers.

Comment author: ikrase 08 February 2013 11:56:47AM 0 points [-]

How so? They should be thinking about it (meaning purposefully dodging it if they want to conceal thinking about it?)Personally, I doubt they are at that point yet at all.

Comment author: Plasmon 26 February 2013 05:53:44PM 0 points [-]