= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
twanvl comments on Top 9+2 myths about AI risk - 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 (45)
Why would an AI be a single node? I can run two programs in parallel right now on my computer, and they can talk to each other just fine. So if communication is necessary for intelligence, why couldn't an AI be split up into many communicating sub-AIs?
Ah... so not one individual personality, but a "city" of of AI's? Well, if I see it not as a "robotic superhuman" but "robotic super-humankind" then it certainly becomes possible - a whole species of more efficient beings could of course outcompete a lower species but I was under the impression running many beings each advanced enough to be sentient (OK Yudkowsky claims intelligence is possible without sentience but how would a non-sentient being conceptualize?) would be prohibitively expensive in hardware. I mean imagine simulating all of us or at least a human city...
We can already run neural nets with 1 billion synapses at 1000 hz on a single GPU, or 10 billion synapses at 100 hz (real-time). At current rates of growth (software + hardware), that will be up to 100 billion synapses @100 hz per GPU in just a few years.
At that point, it mainly becomes a software issue, and once AGI's become useful the hardware base is already there to create millions of them, then soon billions.
If we could build a working AGI that required a billion dollars of hardware for world-changing results, why would Google not throw a billion dollars of hardware at it?