Billy Brown wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > Both seemed to indicate that
> > today's computers simply don't have the storage or horsepower needed.
> > I can understand storage, but given an intelligent program and
> > glacially slow hardware, why can't it just be really slow?
> In theory it could be, if you had the storage, but the result would be
> useless. What good is a human-level AI that runs 10^6 times slower than a
> real human?
A great deal of good. It can rewrite its own source code, however
slowly. It can use the conscious thoughts as a brief adjunct to mostly
autonomic processes. It can run a lot faster on next year's hardware,
or convince IBM or some funder to buy you a lot more of this year's
hardware. You can be sure that at least you've solved the problem of
intelligence. And you can write up a Sysop seed and put it on a CD and
hand it to Eric Drexler and ask him to run it on the first nanocomputer,
thus reducing the window of vulnerability.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/beyond.html Member, Extropy Institute Senior Associate, Foresight Institute
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:03 MDT