Mark_Friedenbach comments on Superintelligence Reading Group 3: AI and Uploads - Less Wrong

9 Post author: KatjaGrace 30 September 2014 01:00AM

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

Comments (138)

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

Comment author: kgalias 03 October 2014 03:46:42PM *  1 point [-]

I agree.

Why does this make it more plausible that a person can sit down and invent a human-level artificial intelligence than that they can sit down and invent the technical means to produce brain emulations?

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2014 07:04:39PM *  1 point [-]

We have the technical means to produce brain emulations. It requires just very straightforward advances in imaging and larger supercomputers. There are various smaller-scale brain emulation projects that have already proved the concept. It's just that doing that at a larger scale and finer resolution requires a lot of person-years just to get it done.

EDIT: In Rumsfeld speak, whole-brain emulation is a series of known-knowns: lots of work that we know needs to be done, and someone just has to do it. Whereas AGI involves known-unknowns: we don't know precisely what has to be done, so we can't quantify exactly how long it will take. We could guess, but it remains possible that clever insight might find a better, faster, cheaper path.

Comment author: kgalias 07 October 2014 06:24:06PM 0 points [-]

Sorry for the pause, internet problems at my place.

Anyways, it seems you're right. Technically, it might be more plausible for AI to be coded faster (higher variance), even though I think it'll take more time than emulation (on average).