Alan Grimes wrote:
Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
but I see your point,
What makes you so sure of that?
It has been computed countless times here and elsewhere that I am sure
you are aware of so why do you ask?
-
This list is sponsored by AG
Charles D Hixson wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
but I see your point, software (in general) isn't getting better
nearly as quickly as hardware is getting better.
Well, not at the personally accessible level. I understand
Sergey A. Novitsky wrote:
Dear all,
Perhaps, the questions below were already touched numerous times in
the past.
Could someone kindly point to discussion threads and/or articles where
these concerns were addressed or discussed?
Kind regards,
Serge
--
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > Why do you assume that "win at any cost" is the
> > > default around which
> > > you need to work?
> >
> > Because it corresponds to the behavior of the
> vast,
> > vast majority of
On 01/07/07, Alan Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
> but I see your point,
What makes you so sure of that?
What's the latest estimate of the processing capacity of the human
brain as compared to that of available computer
On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you assume that "win at any cost" is the
> default around which
> you need to work?
Because it corresponds to the behavior of the vast,
vast majority of possible AGI systems. Is there a
single AGI design now in existence which wouldn't
What does Vista have to do with hardware development?
Vista merely exploits hardware; it doesn't build it.
If you want to measure hardware progress, you can just
use some benchmarking program; you don't have to use
OS hardware requirements as a proxy.
- Tom
--- Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > But Deep Blue wouldn't try to poison Kasparov in
> > > order to win the
> > > game. This isn't because it isn't intelligent
> enough
> > > to figure out
> > > that disabling your opp
> Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
> but I see your point,
What makes you so sure of that?
--
Opera: Sing it loud! :o( )>-<
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listb
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 01/07/07, Alan Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the last several years, the limiting factor has absolutely not been
hardware.
How much hardware do you claim you need to devel a hard AI?
Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
but
On 01/07/07, Alan Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the last several years, the limiting factor has absolutely not been
hardware.
How much hardware do you claim you need to devel a hard AI?
Available computing power doesn't yet match that of the human brain,
but I see your point, software
On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Deep Blue wouldn't try to poison Kasparov in
> order to win the
> game. This isn't because it isn't intelligent enough
> to figure out
> that disabling your opponent would be helpful, it's
> because the
> problem it is applying its intelli
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> If AI is going to be super-intelligent, it may be treated by
>> governments as
>> some sort of super-weapon.
>> As it already happened with nuclear weapons, there may be treaties
>> constraining AI development.
> Nuclear weapons need a lot of capital and resources to
More like trying to stop nuclear annihilation if
before the discovery of the fission chain reaction,
everything from your car to your toaster had parts
built out of solid U-235.
- Tom
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/07/07, Sergey A. Novitsky
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > An excellent analogy to a superintelligent AGI is
> a
> > really good chess-playing computer program. The
> > computer program doesn't realize you're there, it
> > doesn't know you're
On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An excellent analogy to a superintelligent AGI is a
really good chess-playing computer program. The
computer program doesn't realize you're there, it
doesn't know you're human, it doesn't even know what
the heck a human is, and it would gladly p
On 01/07/07, Sergey A. Novitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If AI is going to be super-intelligent, it may be treated by governments as
some sort of super-weapon.
As it already happened with nuclear weapons, there may be treaties
constraining AI development.
Nuclear weapons need a lot of capita
--- "Sergey A. Novitsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Perhaps, the questions below were already touched
> numerous times in the
> past.
>
> Could someone kindly point to discussion threads
> and/or articles where these
> concerns were addressed or discussed?
>
>
>
> Kind regar
Dear all,
Perhaps, the questions below were already touched numerous times in the
past.
Could someone kindly point to discussion threads and/or articles where these
concerns were addressed or discussed?
Kind regards,
Serge
19 matches
Mail list logo
