You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

David_Gerard comments on Size of the smallest recursively self-improving AI? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: alexflint 30 March 2011 11:31PM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 March 2011 07:10:36PM *  1 point [-]

My basic idea here is that the newborn baby crawling about is already a lot more analogous to an AI well in the way of going FOOM than a bunch of scattered clever pattern recognition algorithms and symbol representation models that just need the overall software architecture design to tie them together

I'll credit that. A baby is a machine for going FOOM.

(Specifically, I'd guess, because so much has to be left out to produce a size of offspring that can be born without killing the mother too often. Hence the appalling, but really quite typical of evolution, hack of having the human memepool be essential to the organism expressed by the genes growing right.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 31 March 2011 08:12:40PM 1 point [-]

How much larger do you estimate babies would be if they came pre-installed with the information they appallingly lack?

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 March 2011 09:13:14PM -1 points [-]

Presumably at least with a more fully-developed brain. It does quite a bit of growing in the first couple of years.