"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> Billy Brown wrote:
> >At the opposite end of the spectrum you arrive at
> > software that elegantly models the abstract processes of the mind,
> (maybe 10^13 LOC?).
> Disagreement - a truly elegant description of the algorithms, perhaps as
> instructions to genetic-algorithm "compilers" or self-modifying code,
> shouldn't be using any more information than there is in our DNA: 750M, tops.
One problem. Our DNA code only describes a human infant given a human adult.
This is the major problem, that the development of a mind from infant to human quality requires existing human quality minds.
Piaget established reasonably firmly that human infants, at various stages up to about 7-8 years, are not merely less knowledgeable adults, but their brains (basic operations like perception, causal analysis) work in completely different ways then adults. To describe an adult brain with adult knowledge/perceptual structures probably requires a lot more data then to describe an infant's mind, which (as I understand it) is array upon array of undifferentiated "learning" structures.