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.

Transfuturist comments on Computation complexity of AGI design - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Squark 02 February 2015 08:05PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (69)
Tags: anthropics agi ai-risk evolution ai-foom

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 03 February 2015 08:07:27AM *  0 points [-]

If it's that good why isn't it used? (Serious question).

edit: Based on your other comment I guess that's it's only better than other programs when you can't include assumptions about the domain.

Comment author: passive_fist 03 February 2015 08:12:59AM *  1 point [-]

it's only better than other programs when you can't include assumptions about the domain.

Yes, and also when the domain-specific information doesn't exist. We don't yet precisely know how language works, for instance. If we did, we could code it, but we don't.

There's also the matter of having a large additive O(c) constant. That's not as big an issue as some people make it out to be (it can be remedied by clever choice of programming language - provided you know what programming language to use).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit