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.

NancyLebovitz comments on Slowing Moore's Law: Why You Might Want To and How You Would Do It - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: gwern 10 March 2012 04:22AM

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

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 10 March 2012 12:42:49PM 0 points [-]

Maybe there's an intermediate possibility between WBE and de novo AI-- upload an animal brain (how about a crow? a mouse?) and set it to self-improvement. You'd still have to figure out Friendliness for it, but Friendliness might be a hard problem even for an uploaded human brain. How would you identify sufficient Friendliness when you're choosing humans to unpload? I'm assuming that human ems would self-improve, even if it's a much harder problem than improving a de novo AI.

Moore's Second Law reminds me of a good enough for sf notion I've got. Chip fabs keep getting more expensive until there's one per spiral arm.

More seriously, how stable is the Second Law likely to be? The First Law implies increasing competence at making things, and whether the First Law eventually dominates the Second or the other way around isn't obvious.

Comment author: gwern 10 March 2012 05:48:28PM 5 points [-]

Maybe there's an intermediate possibility between WBE and de novo AI-- upload an animal brain (how about a crow? a mouse?) and set it to self-improvement.

It's possible, but I don't know of any reason we would expect an animal brain could recursively improve. As matters stand, all we know is that groups of humans can self-improve - so we don't even know if a single human is smart enough to self-improve as an upload. (Maybe human brains can fall into ruts or inevitably degenerate after enough subjective time.) This isn't too optimistic about crows or mice or lobsters, however excellent stories they make for.

More seriously, how stable is the Second Law likely to be? The First Law implies increasing competence at making things, and whether the First Law eventually dominates the Second or the other way around isn't obvious.

It's been operating since at least the '80s as far as I can tell, and is stable out to 2015 or so. That's a pretty good run.

Comment author: Dmytry 11 March 2012 04:27:16PM *  1 point [-]

Single human, or cat, or other mammal, is smart enough to self improve without being uploaded (learning and training, we do start off pretty incapable). Think about it. It may well be enough to upload then just add more cortical columns, over the time, or do some other simple and dumb process that does not require understanding, to make use of the built-in self improvement ability.

Comment author: billswift 10 March 2012 05:13:51PM -1 points [-]

how about a crow? a mouse?

Or the lobsters in Accelerando.