mjg223 wrote:
>
> I don't agree with this. We understand, in principle, how quantum
> processes could be harnessed to do computational work. Actually building
> one is an engineering problem. (Not to minimize the size of that problem -
> the difficulty of the engineering problem is why Leonardo DaVinci didn't
> go into business selling helicopters.)
>
> The brain is not just a big general purpose
> processor, there's a lot of software and specialized hardware that we
> don't understand.
See http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html [343K]
> Where does your 2020 figure come from? (I'm afraid I
> don't know how to expand the 'CRNS' qualifier.)
Current Rate No Singularity. The 2020 figure is how long I think it'll take for AI researchers to think their way out of a cardboard box if I'm not running things. I'd *like* to have it done by 2005.
--
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