> > While it can see how it might take some time to learn how local things work,
> > I think it takes much less time to compile that more abstractly.
> Why would you think that?
I don't think nature is very well compiled as it is. Nature happened uponneurons
as a computational mechanism and used it, even though most of
what happens in a neuron is irrelevant to the computation.
> > And since I tend to think of nanotech as more of a gradual increase in
> > manufacturing abilities, I don't think specifics of nanotech progress matter
> > that much here.
> Nanotech also offers qualitiatively new abilities that can significantly
> affect the development of other technologies. Without nanotech you aren't
> going to see cheap uploads in this century - the computers will be too slow,
> and it will take too long to do the optimization research.
> with nanotech, ... The relative rates of progress of these different
> technologies all change significantly, which gives you a very different world
I'm not sure we know much about how nanotech changes the relative rates of
> > I don't think neural interfaces will be very useful,
> Neural interfaces would make truly immersive VR and ER environments possible,
> ... the fact that an upload has no physical body would no longer constitute a
> significant limit on its ability to interact with normal humans.
OK, but these are relatively minor issues compared to the others we are talking
> > and don't think substantial intelligence enhancement is that relevant -
> > whatever enhancements humans have uploads can use too.
> ... Does an upload that does a hundred jobs at the same time, some virtual and
> some via teleoperated drones, have any particular competitive advantage over an
> enhanced 'human' who can do the same things? I would say, only if you don't have
> to pay the upload - and at that point it
> will be obvious to everyone that you are practicing slavery.
I don't think you understand the economic argument here. Even ignoring speed
advantages of uploads, since it is cheap to create uploads, the supply increases
quickly, which lowers the market wage. I did try to explain this stuff at
> > Sentient AI seems very unlikely to me to happen before uploads, being a vastly
> harder problem.
> On what basis do you assume that it is 'vastly harder'? ... Acheiving
> animal-level intelligence seems to be a much more tractible problem, and it
> would enable us to build robots good enough to automate almost all physical
Nine years of AI research left me with definite impressions. And we already have
very cheap animal intelligence - real animals are cheap, and they come with bodies
too. But very few organizations manage to replace much human labor with animal
> 1) Slave labor is generally not profitable, because of the size of the
> investment required to ensure that the slaves don't revolt
I didn't advocate or postulate slave labor. There are lots of possiblearrangments
that lead the the same result. The key point is a vastly
increased supply of labor lowering wages.
> 2) Creating an upload doesn't just increase the labor supply. It also
> increases demand, since the upload will want to spend his wages on something.
> Upload copying is thus exactly analogous to ordinary population growth - it is
> just a faster, potentially less costly way of doing the same thing.
Fast population growth is what makes all the difference. Really.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:37 MDT