<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Papiewski, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The only way to do it is to gradually replace your
> brain cells with an
> > artificial substitute.
> >
>
> We could instead anesthetize the crap out of
You're not misunderstanding and it is horrible.
The only way to do it is to gradually replace your brain cells with an
artificial substitute.
You'd be barely aware that something is going on, and there wouldn't be
two copies of you to be confused over.
For example, imagine a medica
I disagree. If even a half-baked, partial, buggy, slow simulation of a
human mind were available the captains of industry would jump on it in a
second.
Do you remember when no business had an automated answering service?
That transition took only a few years.
No, the problem is, the theore
Of all the work and research done on intelligent AI over the past 50+
years, why do we not have software or even a description of software
that simulates even childlike intelligence at a tiny percentage of
realtime speed?
We don't even have naive, slow AI yet, and here people are talking about
I'm going to take a dim/skeptical view of the true potency of advanced
AI here.
If a hypothetical advanced AI comes up with, say, a design for a
working, practical, economical, enviromentally friendly power source,
will it really get anywhere? Or if it says one day that the "War on
Drugs" in
