= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on "Stupid" questions thread - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (850)
What would a law against developing strong AI look like?
I've suggested in the past that it would look something like a ban on chips more powerful than X teraflops/$.
How close are we to illicit chip manufacturing? On second thought, it might be easier to steal the chips.
Cutting-edge chip manufacturing of the necessary sort? I believe we are lightyears away and things like 3D printing are irrelevant, and that it's a little like asking how close we are to people running Manhattan Projects in their garage*; see my essay for details.
* Literally. The estimated budget for an upcoming Taiwanese chip fab is equal to some inflation-adjusted estimates of the Manhattan Project.
My notion of nanotech may have some fantasy elements-- I think of nanotech as ultimately being able to put every atom where you want it, so long as the desired location is compatible with the atoms that are already there.
I realize that chip fabs keep getting more expensive, but is there any reason to think this can't reverse?
It's hard to say what nanotech will ultimately pan out to be.
But in the absence of nanoassemblers, it'd be a very bad idea to bet against Moore's second law.