= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on In Praise of Boredom - 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 (100)
You can't just be "intelligent over and over", because discovery and insight are essentially random processes. You can't just *find* insight, you have to look for it, in the same way that evolution searches the option space.
Yes, you can always have better heuristics or search algorithms. But those heuristics are not *themselves* intelligence. And there are always new heuristics to discover...
So, I don't think mere insight into the process of intelligence would allow you to be bored, since the *things to be discovered* by intelligence would still be "out there" rather than "in here", if you get my drift. And it's those subjects of discovery that are the intended targets of novelty and interest, anyway.
In that case, roll a die over and over, and you'll have to worry about boredom.
True, but one of those heuristics is you, and you can't stop doing that.
Of course, I don't think any of us think this is very likely to be a problem. I'm basically just playing devil's advocate.
I'm pretty certain you'd have to do some significant self-modification to understand it all on a level that makes it boring, and at that point, you could just self-modify so that it isn't boring.