RE: greatest threats to survival (was: why believe the truth?)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 20:29:14 MDT

  • Next message: Robin Hanson: "Re: The Future of Secrecy"

    Harvey wrote:
    > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
    >> Eliezer wrote:
    >>> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> ### For all the decades of unmet expectations, AI relied on
    >>>> computing power of the order of an ant, and only recently, as
    >>>> Moravec writes, did they graduate to the computing power of a
    >>>> mouse. Since AI on ant-powered computers gave ant-powered results,
    >>>> and AI on mouse-powered computers gives mouse-powered capacities
    >>>> (such as target tracking, simple learning, simple motor control),
    >>>> we may expect that AI on human-level computers will give
    >>>> human-level results. Human-level computing power is going to be
    >>>> available to SingInst in about 15 years, so we can expect the
    >>>> recursive self-enhancement of the FAI to take off around that time.
    >>>
    >>> No, unfortunately, as far as I can tell, we have *enough* computing
    >>> power available for AI now. Yes, right now. *More* computing power
    >>> will make it *easier*, again unfortunately so. At least with
    >>> current computing power it should still be fairly *hard* for the
    >>> standard flounder-around style of AI to get anywhere.
    >>
    >> ### Well, yes, this was meant as a conservative estimate for the
    >> consumption of skeptics, to get them hooked on the idea of near-term
    >> Singularity, so in the next step they can accept the prospect of a
    >> really immediate right-now Singularity, right after SingInst gets
    >> the new Dell (or IBM or whatever) workstations they hope to get
    >> funded (hint, hint).
    >
    > What an interesting tactic! Are you saying that you realize these
    > flaws in your argument, but you want to use them anyway, hoping that
    > the public doesn't notice? I am not sure this tactic is wise.
    > Doesn't it give opponents ammunition to point out how your argument
    > is flawed? It seems to me that we would never want to deliberately
    > spread misinformation, even if it supports our cause.

    ### I do not think that pointing to the moderately conservative estimates
    among the estimates I am familiar with amounts to misinformation. Persons
    who become interested in the predictions based on my exposition will be able
    to gather more information and make their own guesses, as I implied above. I
    do not quite know which are the flaws you are referring to.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 17:38:49 MDT