On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:31:23AM +1300, Charles Haynes wrote:
> Top posting and not trimming due to primitive "smart" phone interface.
>
> If rate of cognition goes up doesn't ability to predict do so as well? Is
Good point. But we're at a fixed point at the moment, given that
there is no easy
Top posting and not trimming due to primitive "smart" phone interface.
If rate of cognition goes up doesn't ability to predict do so as well? Is
there a combinatorial effect that makes predictability intractable?
-- Charles
On Feb 16, 2011 12:09 PM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:28:23AM -0800, Heather Madrone wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_of_substitution
>
> It's a pretty basic concept, actually, straight out of Economics 2. How
Sorry, I don't do pseudosciences. Thanks for the links, still see no
relevance to a simple scena
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Heather Madrone wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_of_substitution
>
> It's a pretty basic concept, actually, straight out of Economics 2. How
> easy/useful is it to substitute one input for another in production? It
> would take about 2 minutes to e
On 2/14/11 8:14 AM February 14, 2011, Anand Manikutty wrote:
I see. So you don't know what elasticity of substitution is. Well
then, we have a bigger problem than you not following this particular
argument.
The issue : there is a structure to the arguments here that you are
not following, and
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 03:13:44AM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Yes, but you have to show that self-improvement is automatic. That is,
> this process of self-improvement can continue without human
> intervention.
*plonk*
> Anand
> --- In silk-l...@yahoogroups.com, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> >
To begin with, I'm going to reiterate what others have said about your
argument being cloaked in technical terms without enough context to
give them utility.
On 14-Feb-11, at 9:17 PM, Anand Manikutty wrote:
[snip]
There is some detail in these subsequent emails (Suresh, Venky,
Udhay, Sirt
Yahoo groups is not the best for forums. Sometimes, messages take a very
long time to show up. And so for that long, you don't even know whether
they got posted or not. So here goes (once again).-+-
As I have mentioned, this discussion has already come to a close.
Basically, it is the job of the Si
As I have mentioned, this discussion has already come to a close.
Basically, it is the job of the Singularitarians to defend their theory
and convince everybody, including professors. I am your reviewer here.
It is not my job to convince or tell you what to think. It is my job to
point out the flaw
Not all of the responses to the theory of Singularity is complex. There
is work by Herbert Simon that is reasonably accessible that ought to be
considered. I have a very simple summary of a response to the
Singularity argument here
:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo-euro-americo-asian_list/message
Yes, but you have to show that self-improvement is automatic. That is,
this process of self-improvement can continue without human
intervention.
Anand
--- In silk-l...@yahoogroups.com, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
>
>
> On 14-Feb-11, at 5:03 AM, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> > Eugen:
> > --- In silk-l...@y
On 15-Feb-11 6:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> There is no reason to assume that a post-singularity intelligence will
>> subscribe to Maslow.
>
> Because it'd be a realized / self actualized soul?
> Or because it'd be a unique entity with no society to interact with?
Because there is no r
Sirtaj Singh Kang [14/02/11 17:27 -0600]:
You asked for a mechanism by which a machine might seek self-
improvement, and I've provided one that is in common use. Talking
about individual's preferences in this context is meaningless unless
you are demanding complete anthropomorphisation of this
On 14-Feb-11, at 5:03 AM, Anand Manikutty wrote:
Eugen:
--- In silk-l...@yahoogroups.com, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:57:54PM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> > I assume that by GA, you mean Genetic Algorithms. Genetic
Algorithms are
> > a search heuristic. GA doesn't cha
Vinayak Hegde [15/02/11 00:19 +0530]:
I really couldn't make sense of this paragraph no matter how hard I
try to wrap my mind around this. I see that you use the English
alphabet but your floral and verbose language doesn't make any sense
to me. Looks like I am getting a little dense with age.
> As for your question on me being a philosopher, there is no harm in me
> admitting that I have some competency in philosophy, but to appreciate the
> arguments, you would need to understand the literature in economics and
> organizations, not philosophy. That said, many of the world's leading
> p
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Anand Manikutty
wrote:
> I see. So you don't know what elasticity of substitution is. Well then, we
> have a bigger problem than you not following this particular argument.
> The issue : there is a structure to the arguments here that you are not
> following, and I
I see. So you don't know what elasticity of substitution is. Well then,
we have a bigger problem than you not following this particular
argument.
The issue : there is a structure to the arguments here that you are not
following, and I could see that you weren't seeing it from the
beginning.
The con
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:03:28AM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the theoretical argument from the elasticity of substitution
>
> The argument is empirical. I don't know what elasticity of substitution is.
>
I would also like t
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:03:28AM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Yes, but the theoretical argument from the elasticity of substitution
The argument is empirical. I don't know what elasticity of substitution is.
> obviously takes individual's preferences with respect to procreation,
Sexual sel
Eugen:
--- In silk-l...@yahoogroups.com, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:57:54PM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> > I assume that by GA, you mean Genetic Algorithms. Genetic Algorithms
are
> > a search heuristic. GA doesn't change the conclusions of my
analysis.
>
> The Darwinian
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:57:54PM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> I assume that by GA, you mean Genetic Algorithms. Genetic Algorithms are
> a search heuristic. GA doesn't change the conclusions of my analysis.
The Darwinian evolution is a "search heuristic", too.
> In his reply to my email, Wil
I assume that by GA, you mean Genetic Algorithms. Genetic Algorithms are
a search heuristic. GA doesn't change the conclusions of my analysis.
In his reply to my email, William Nordhaus
suggested viewing this in terms of the elasticity of substitution of X
where X would include computation and oth
On 07-Feb-11, at 12:30 PM, Anand Manikutty wrote:
I have discussed this issue with the people at the Singularity
meetup. None of them is able to tell me how exactly AI could engage
in "continuous self-improvement", an idea which lies at the heart of
the Singularity argument. I believe that
Well, many of the Singularity proponents do say that they are not taken
seriously in academia because of monkey politics, et cetera. To me, it
is a matter of incentives. Kurzweil's theory is more than *a* theory.
His theory is one of the bases of the arguments for Singularity. I
haven't seen a sing
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
[...]
>> Human history is full of lost civilizations, in the global age we are
>> all a single civilization - why shouldn't we be the next in line to be
>> affected by environmental factors a la Indus valley or the Maya.
>
> Yeah, I'm also onboard
On 08-Feb-11 8:33 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Most of things you see around you are artificial in origin, and
> were first represented as an activity pattern in the space
> between somebody's ears.
I am stealing this as my quote of the day.
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:12:39PM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> > I admit I looked for them, but unfortunately failed to find any.So you
> are saying that this graph by Kurzweil is actually right? I assumed that
No, I think Kurzweil is at least guilty of serious cherry-picking.
> the sillines
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:09:05AM -0800, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> Yes, I think 3D printing and similar technologies [0] are tempting,
In principle this would scale to micro and eventually nanoscale.
Right now it would mean lots of magic ink cartridges, and prices
which make them effectively u
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:13:20PM -0800, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>>
>> > The industrial revolution is dying, I give it 150 years... I don't know
>> > what
Paraphrasing Leo Tol
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:13:20PM -0800, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>
> > The industrial revolution is dying, I give it 150 years... I don't know what
>
> Not necessarily true. There is some interesting technology
> in the pipeline which could
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:13:20PM -0800, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> The industrial revolution is dying, I give it 150 years... I don't know what
Not necessarily true. There is some interesting technology
in the pipeline which could allow means of production to
assist with providing means of pro
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> the Industrial Revolution
The industrial revolution is dying, I give it 150 years... I don't know what
the next revolution is, but it's clear that the information age is merely
the last stage of the industrial revolution.
Cheeni
Hi Udhay :
Thank you for your email.
Let me throw in another short summary response : in my opinion, the
Singularity has already happened. It was called the Industrial
Revolution.
Over and out for now.AnandP.S. Of course, that is why I believe that
there is no Singularity for us in the future (cont
--- In silk-l...@yahoogroups.com, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:25:11AM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> > Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
>
> I admit I looked for them, but unfortunately failed to find any.So you
are saying that this graph by Kurzweil is ac
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:25:11AM -, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
I admit I looked for them, but unfortunately failed to find any.
> My claim is : there is just no reason to believe (based on the evidence
> presented by Yudkowsky, Vinge and Kur
Venky :
Thank you for your comments. It is fine if you are unable to continue
the discussion. I understand.
To summarize my position : there is just no reason to believe that a
singularity could happen. A Singularity is still very hypothetical (more
or less in the realm of science fiction).
I have
On 7 February 2011 22:22, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Hi Venky :
> I think there has been some confusion/miscommunication. The List (capital
> "L") I am referring to is this one :
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo-euro-americo-asian_list/messages
> Since it appears that you have not read the messa
Hi Venky :
I think there has been some confusion/miscommunication. The List
(capital "L") I am referring to is this one :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo-euro-americo-asian_list/messages
Since it appears that you have not read the messages I have posted there
(just read the posts from 215 onward
On 7 February 2011 08:55, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
Your "List" being? If you mean silklist or to a list of points you
made there, yes.
(And you should re-check my previous message where I quoted the parts of your
message I was responding to.)
Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
My claim is : there is just no reason to believe (based on the evidence
presented by Yudkowsky, Vinge and Kurzweil) that a singularity could
happen. A singularity is still very hypothetical (more or less in the
realm of science fiction).
Anand
=+
On 7 February 2011 00:01, Anand Manikutty wrote:
> Technological systems, businesses and social systems work together.
> Technology is not developed in a vacuum - it needs to be deployed somehow -
> and it is at the point of deployment of technology that regulation by
> government kicks in. That
Hi Udhay :
I have been following this idea of a Technological Singularity for a
while (quite a few years), and need absolutely no education on the
topic. In fact, I went to a Singularity meetup in Berkeley yesterday
(even though I am quite skeptical about the entire concept) and met some
of the peo
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Anand Manikutty
wrote:
> There has been a lot of interest around the idea of the technological
> singularity. There is even an operating system by Microsoft carrying that
> name. Anyway, I have been quite skeptical about the whole concept.
> What I would like t
There has been a lot of interest around the idea of the technological
singularity. There is even an operating system by Microsoft carrying that name.
Anyway, I have been quite skeptical about the whole concept. Anyway, I emailed
Mr. Jasen Murray of the Singularity Institute about some of the iss
45 matches
Mail list logo
