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