Paul Hughes wrote:
>
> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> > Paul Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > **Since no one has actually built or designed a theoretical human-level AI, how can
> > > anyone possibly claim what it takes to build one? This seems completely absurd
> > > to the point of self-contradiction! As so many are fond of saying around here -
> > > extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> >
> > Hello-oo-o? http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html?
>
> Read it, re-read it, has potential, been there, done that. A design is
> just a design. The real question is - will it work? You don't know that,
> you can't prove it, because until it actually *is* working, you have
> no proof. At this point it's nothing more than a self-consistent piece
> of computational and logical poetry. Interesting, original, fun to read,
> but utterly useless until it can actually be applied to *do* something.
Or are you seriously suggesting that I should try to write and run the entire AI before even *trying* to estimate the hardware required? The quantity and architecture of hardware *available* is a major factor in software design. Yes, we'll have a much better idea of what it takes to run an AI after the first version fails - but I still have to guess, now, with what I know now.
BTW, my estimate is 1e17 ops/sec on CPU-like architectures.
-- sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way