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.

wedrifid comments on For FAI: Is "Molecular Nanotechnology" putting our best foot forward? - Less Wrong Discussion

48 Post author: leplen 22 June 2013 04:44AM

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

Comments (117)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 26 June 2013 08:50:26AM *  0 points [-]

I'm fairly sure I know more about MNT than Eliezer (I tried to make a career of it around 1997-2003), and I'm convinced it would take an FAI longer than Eliezer expects unless the FAI has very powerful quantum computers.

Estimating how long a strong AI takes to design molecular nanotechnology requires knowledge of molecular nanotechnology, knowledge of recursive artificial intelligence and knowledge of computation. This is particularly the case since most of the computation required to go from a recursively-self-improving-AI-seed to nanotech is going to be spent on the early levels of self improving, not the nanotech design itself.

The "unless the FAI has very powerful quantum computers" caveat gives a rather strong indication that your appeals to your own authority are less trustworthy with respect to AI and computation than they are about MNT (for reasons alluded to by shminux).

Comment author: pcm 26 June 2013 04:59:40PM 1 point [-]

There are some problems for which knowledge of the problem plus knowledge of computation is sufficient to estimate a minimum amount of computation needed. Are you claiming to know that MNT isn't like that? Or that an AI can create powerful enough computers that that's irrelevant?

Appeals to authority about AI seem unimpressive, since nobody has demonstrated expertise at creating superhuman AI.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 June 2013 06:12:19PM *  1 point [-]

Appeals to authority about AI seem unimpressive, since nobody has demonstrated expertise at creating superhuman AI.

Perhaps my token effort at politeness made me less than completely clear. That wasn't an appeal to AI authority. That was a rejection of your appeal to your own personal authority based on the degree to which you undermined your credibility on the subject by expressing magical thinking about quantum computation.

Appeals to authority about AI seem unimpressive, since nobody has demonstrated expertise at creating superhuman AI.

You just appealed to your own authority about molecular nano-technology. When can I expect you to announce your product release? (Be consistent!)

Comment author: pcm 26 June 2013 06:48:38PM 0 points [-]

Magical thinking? I intended to mainly express uncertainty about it.

I don't expect appeals to authority to accomplish much here. Maybe it was a mistake for me to mention it at all, but I'm concerned that people here might treat Eliezer as more of an authority on MNT than he deserves. I only claimed to have more authority about MNT than Eliezer. That doesn't imply much - I'm trying to encourage more doubt about how an AI could take over the world.