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.

chaosmage comments on [LINK] Speed superintelligence? - Less Wrong Discussion

36 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 14 August 2014 03:57PM

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

Comments (20)

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

Comment author: zzrafz 14 August 2014 04:47:02PM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure speed alone, by itself, is a solution. If you speed down a game by, say, 70% there would probably be no difference than if you sped it down by 90%, since there's a limit to what the character can do in a given second. Mario, for instance, once you jump, there's not much to do until he actually lands.

Suppose the same would happen if we had the capability to speed down time in our actual lives. Sure you could dodge bullets and win F1 races from time to time, but the actual day-to-day tasks, that take the majority of our time wouldn't be improved much. If you need to eat lunch, eating it in an optimal way won't give you much advantage in comparison to regular people that don't take the fork to their mouths following a perfect parabola.

Comment author: chaosmage 27 August 2014 06:05:44PM 2 points [-]

Standardized IQ tests have specific times for completion for a reason. With more time (and the conscientiousness to actually use it) everyone would do better at them. So a speed increase is an IQ increase.

I think of my mental processing as a kind of information metabolism, with an equivalent of hunger: boredom. So I expect a smarter/faster thinker would need more input to process, much like a more muscular body needs more food. That, at the very least, should cause a smarter/faster thinker to interact with its environment substantially different from a standard rate one.