--- Sergey Novitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Governments do not have a history of realizing the
> >power of technology before it comes on the market.
>
> But this was not so with nuclear weapons...
It was the physicists who first became aware of the
power of nukes, and the physicists had t
Governments do not have a history of realizing the
power of technology before it comes on the market.
But this was not so with nuclear weapons...
And with AGI, it's about something that has the potential to overthrow the
world order (or at least the order within a single country).
Would not the
--- "Sergey A. Novitsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >>Are these questions, statement, opinions, sound
> bites or what? It seem a
> >>bit of a stew.
> Yes. A bit of everything indeed. Thanks for noting
> the incoherency.
>
> >>> * As it already happened with nuclear
> weapons, there ma
>>
>>Are these questions, statement, opinions, sound bites or what? It seem a
>>bit of a stew.
Yes. A bit of everything indeed. Thanks for noting the incoherency.
>>> * As it already happened with nuclear weapons, there may be
>>> treaties constraining AI development.
>>>
>>
>>Well we ha
--- Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Tom McCabe wrote:
> > The problem isn't that the AGI will violate its
> > original goals; it's that the AGI will eventually
> do
> > something that will destroy something really
> important
> > in such a way as to satisfy all of its
> constraints.
Tom McCabe wrote:
The problem isn't that the AGI will violate its
original goals; it's that the AGI will eventually do
something that will destroy something really important
in such a way as to satisfy all of its constraints. By
setting constraints on the AGI, you're trying to think
of everything
On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we're getting terms mixed up here. By
> > "values", do you mean the "ends", the ultimate
> moral
> > objectives that the AGI has, thin
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we're getting terms mixed up here. By
> > "values", do you mean the "ends", the ultimate
> moral
> > objectives that the AGI has, things that the AGI
> > thinks are good across all pos
On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we're getting terms mixed up here. By
"values", do you mean the "ends", the ultimate moral
objectives that the AGI has, things that the AGI
thinks are good across all possible situations?
No, sorry. By "values", I mean something similar
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > --- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I hope that my response to Stathis might further
> > > elucidate.
> >
> > Er, okay. I read this email first.
>
>
>
> Might I suggest re
On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that my response to Stathis might further
> elucidate.
Er, okay. I read this email first.
Might I suggest reading an entire post for comprehension /before/
beginning to reply.
I do app
>> http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/brownrob.html
>> READ IT AND WEEP!
> I read it and shook my head in amazement that you consider this an
> argument in this context.
My point is that the actual functional capacity of the brain (not
counting internal redundancies), is actually much smaller
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 02/07/07, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > While I agree with you in regard to decoupling
> intelligence and any
> > > particular goals, this doesn't mean goals ca
--- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> >
> > AGIs do not work in a "sensible" manner, because
> they
> > have no constraints that will force them to stay
> > within the bounds of behavior that a human would
> > consider "sensible".
> >
>
>
> If you really mean the
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > For years I've observed and occasionally
> > > participated in these
> > > discussions of humans (however augmented and/or
> > > organiz
On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For years I've observed and occasionally
> participated in these
> discussions of humans (however augmented and/or
> organized) vis-à-vis
> volitional superintelligent AI, and it strikes me as
> quit
On 7/2/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
AGIs do not work in a "sensible" manner, because they
have no constraints that will force them to stay
within the bounds of behavior that a human would
consider "sensible".
If you really mean the above, then I don't see why you are bothering
to argue on this list
On 7/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02/07/07, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I agree with you in regard to decoupling intelligence and any
> particular goals, this doesn't mean goals can be random or arbitrary.
> To the extent that striving toward goals
--- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> >
> > --- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > These rules exist only in your head. They
> aren't
> > > > written down anywhere, and they will not be
> > > > transferred via os
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > The goals will be designed by humans, but the huge
> > prior probability against the goals leading to an
> AGI
> > that does what people want means that it takes a
> heck
> > of a lot
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The goals will be designed by humans, but the huge
prior probability against the goals leading to an AGI
that does what people want means that it takes a heck
of a lot of design effort to accomplish that.
Not as much design effort as building
On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
--- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> >
> > These rules exist only in your head. They aren't
> > written down anywhere, and they will not be
> > transferred via osmosis into the AGI.
> >
>
> They *are* written down.
> I just quoted fr
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It would be vastly easier for a properly
> programmed
> > AGI to decipher what we meant that it would be for
> > humans. The question is- why would the AGI want to
> > decipher what hu
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be vastly easier for a properly programmed
AGI to decipher what we meant that it would be for
humans. The question is- why would the AGI want to
decipher what human mean, as opposed to the other
2^1,000,000,000 things it could be doing?
It is very coherent; however, I'm not sure how you
would judge a goal's arbitrariness. From the human
perspective it is rather arbitrary, since it's
unrelated to most human desires.
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > Are you suggesting that the AI won't be smart
> enough
> > > to understand
> > > what people mean when they ask for a banana?
> >
> > It's not a question of intelligence- it's a
> qu
Charles D Hixson wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
Sergey A. Novitsky wrote:
Dear all,
...
o Be deprived of free will or be given limited free will (if
such a concept is applicable to AI).
See above, no effective means of control.
- samantha
There is *one* effective me
On 02/07/07, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I agree with you in regard to decoupling intelligence and any
particular goals, this doesn't mean goals can be random or arbitrary.
To the extent that striving toward goals (more realistically:
promotion of values) is supportable by int
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the AI won't be smart enough
> to understand
> what people mean when they ask for a banana?
It's not a question of intelligence- it's a question
of selecting a human-friendly target in a huge space
of possibilities. Wh
Alan Grimes wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
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
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > If its top level goal is to allow its other goals
> to vary randomly,
> > then evolution will favour those AI's which decide
> to spread and
> > multiply, perhaps consuming humans in
On 7/1/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If its top level goal is to allow its other goals to vary randomly,
then evolution will favour those AI's which decide to spread and
multiply, perhaps consuming humans in the process. Building an AI like
this would be like building a bomb
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > For
> > > example, if it has as its most important goal
> > > obeying the commands of
> > > humans, that's what it will do.
> >
> > Yup. For example, if a human said "I want a
> bana
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For
> example, if it has as its most important goal
> obeying the commands of
> humans, that's what it will do.
Yup. For example, if a human said "I want a banana",
the fastest way for the AGI to get the human banana
may be to detonate a kilo
The problem isn't that the AGI will violate its
original goals; it's that the AGI will eventually do
something that will destroy something really important
in such a way as to satisfy all of its constraints. By
setting constraints on the AGI, you're trying to think
of everything bad the AGI might p
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > The AGI doesn't care what any human, human
> committee,
> > or human government thinks; it simply follows its
> own
> > internal rules.
>
> Sure, but its internal rules and goals migh
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The AGI doesn't care what any human, human committee,
or human government thinks; it simply follows its own
internal rules.
Sure, but its internal rules and goals might be specified in such a
way as to make it refrain from acting in a particul
On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But killing someone and then beating them on the
chessboard due to the lack of opposition does count as
winning under the formal rules of chess, since there's
nothing in the rules of chess about killing the
opponent. The rule "don't kill, strangl
On 02/07/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in the final analysis, the AI would be able to be implemented as
> code in a general purpose language on a general purpose computer with
Absolutely not. Possibly, something like a silicon compiler
with billions to trillions asynchronous
BillK wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
>> These rules exist only in your head. They aren't
>> written down anywhere, and they will not be
>> transferred via osmosis into the AGI.
> They *are* written down.
> I just quoted from the FIDE laws of chess.
> And they would be given to the AGI alon
--- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> >
> > These rules exist only in your head. They aren't
> > written down anywhere, and they will not be
> > transferred via osmosis into the AGI.
> >
>
> They *are* written down.
> I just quoted from the FIDE laws of chess.
> A
On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
These rules exist only in your head. They aren't
written down anywhere, and they will not be
transferred via osmosis into the AGI.
They *are* written down.
I just quoted from the FIDE laws of chess.
And they would be given to the AGI along with the rest of the rul
--- BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
> > The constraints of "don't shoot the opponent"
> aren't
> > written into the formal rules of chess; they exist
> > only in your mind. If you claim otherwise, please
> give
> > me one chess tutorial that explicitly says "don't
On 7/1/07, Tom McCabe wrote:
The constraints of "don't shoot the opponent" aren't
written into the formal rules of chess; they exist
only in your mind. If you claim otherwise, please give
me one chess tutorial that explicitly says "don't
shoot the opponent".
This is just silly.
All competiti
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:51:26PM -0700, Tom McCabe
> wrote:
>
> > All of this applies only to implosion-type
> devices,
> > which are far more complicated and tricky to pull
> off
> > than gun-type devices, and which are therefore
> > unlikely to be
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:56:24PM +1000, Stathis
> Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > But the constraints of the problem are no less a
> legitimate part of
>
> We're all solving the same problem: sustainable
> self-replication
> long-term.
What does self-rep
The constraints of "don't shoot the opponent" aren't
written into the formal rules of chess; they exist
only in your mind. If you claim otherwise, please give
me one chess tutorial that explicitly says "don't
shoot the opponent".
- Tom
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:44:09AM -0700, Tom McCabe
> wrote:
>
> > > They also need knowledge, which is still largely
> > > secret.
> >
> > Knowledge of *what*? How to build a crude gun to
> fire
> > one block of cast metal into another block of cas
Samantha Atkins wrote:
Sergey A. Novitsky wrote:
Dear all,
...
o Be deprived of free will or be given limited free will (if
such a concept is applicable to AI).
See above, no effective means of control.
- samantha
There is *one* effective means of control:
An AI wil
Peter Voss wrote:
Just for the record: To put it mildly, not everyone is 'Absolutely' sure
that AGI can't be implemented on Bill's computer.
In fact, some of us are pretty certain that that (a) current hardware is
adequate, and (b) AGI software will be with us in (much) less than 10 years.
Some
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 07:01:07PM +1000, Stathis
> Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > What sort of technical information, exactly, is
> still secret after 50 years?
>
> The precise blueprint for a working device. Not a
> crude gun assembler,
> the full implos
But killing someone and then beating them on the
chessboard due to the lack of opposition does count as
winning under the formal rules of chess, since there's
nothing in the rules of chess about killing the
opponent. The rule "don't kill, strangle, drug, maim,
injure, or otherwise physically hurt"
Samantha Atkins wrote:
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 accessib
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:51:26PM -0700, Tom McCabe wrote:
> All of this applies only to implosion-type devices,
> which are far more complicated and tricky to pull off
> than gun-type devices, and which are therefore
> unlikely to be used.
We're arguing something tedious, and meaningless.
The
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:45:20AM -0700, Tom McCabe
> wrote:
>
> > Do you have any actual evidence for this? History
> has
> > shown that numbers made up on the spot with no
> > experimental verification whatsoever don't work
> well.
>
> You need 10
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:47:27AM -0700, Tom McCabe
> wrote:
>
> > Because an AGI is an entirely different kind of
> thing
> > from evolution. AGI doesn't have to care what
>
> If it's being created by an evolutionary context
What does that even me
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:06PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> But in the final analysis, the AI would be able to be implemented as
>> code in a general purpose language on a general purpose computer with
> Absolutely not. Possibly, something like a silicon compiler
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:08:53AM -0700, Peter Voss wrote:
> Just for the record: To put it mildly, not everyone is 'Absolutely' sure
> that AGI can't be implemented on Bill's computer.
What is Bill's computer? A 3 PFlop Blue Gene/P? A Core 2 duo box from Dell?
> In fact, some of us are pretty
e people may be very, very surprised.
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:35 AM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] AI concerns
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:06PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bu
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:06PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> But in the final analysis, the AI would be able to be implemented as
> code in a general purpose language on a general purpose computer with
Absolutely not. Possibly, something like a silicon compiler
with billions to trillion
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 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?
http://
On 01/07/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure all-purpose hardware would be suitable [for AI]. It depends very
much
upon which computing paradigm is dominant by that time (40-50 years
away from now). Judging from the past, there might be not that much
progress there.
But in
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:56:24PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> But the constraints of the problem are no less a legitimate part of
We're all solving the same problem: sustainable self-replication
long-term. Artificial systems so far are only instruments (though
they do evolve in the human
On 01/07/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that disabling your opponent would be helpful, it's because the
> problem it is applying its intelligence to is winning according to the
> formal rules of chess. Winning at any cost might look like the same
> problem to us vague humans, but i
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:44:09AM -0700, Tom McCabe wrote:
> > They also need knowledge, which is still largely
> > secret.
>
> Knowledge of *what*? How to build a crude gun to fire
> one block of cast metal into another block of cast
> metal?
How about gas centrifuges, materials resistant to
U
On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If its goal is "achieve x using whatever means
> necessary" and x is
> "win at chess using only the formal rules of chess",
> then it would
> fail if it won by using some means extraneous to the
> formal rules of
> chess, just as surely as it
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 07:01:07PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> What sort of technical information, exactly, is still secret after 50 years?
The precise blueprint for a working device. Not a crude gun assembler,
the full implosion assembly mounty. The HE lens geometries, the timing,
the me
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:45:20AM -0700, Tom McCabe wrote:
> Do you have any actual evidence for this? History has
> shown that numbers made up on the spot with no
> experimental verification whatsoever don't work well.
You need 10^17 bits and 10^23 ops to more or less accurately
represent and t
On 01/07/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They also need knowledge, which is still largely secret. The
number of people who could construct a crude working nuclear weapon
is below 1% (possibly, way below 1%), and an advanced fusion weapon
in ppm range.
What sort of technical informat
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:47:27AM -0700, Tom McCabe wrote:
> Because an AGI is an entirely different kind of thing
> from evolution. AGI doesn't have to care what
If it's being created by an evolutionary context and
is competing with likewise it is precisely evolution,
only with a giant fitness
Because an AGI is an entirely different kind of thing
from evolution. AGI doesn't have to care what
evolution is or how it works; there's no constraint on
it whatsoever to act like evolution does. Evolution is
actually nicer than most AGIs, because evolution is
constrained by the need to have one v
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:11:20PM -0400, Alan
> Grimes wrote:
>
> > =\
> > For the last several years, the limiting factor
> has absolutely not been
> > hardware.
>
> How many years? How much OPS, aggregated network and
> memory bandwidth?
> What is
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:24:17AM +1000, Stathis
> Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > Nuclear weapons need a lot of capital and
> resources to construct,
>
> They also need knowledge, which is still largely
> secret.
Knowledge of *what*? How to build a crude
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:35:21AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Why do you assume that "win at any cost" is the default around which
> you need to work?
Because these are the rules of the game for a few GYrs. Why do you
assume that these have changed?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:11:20PM -0400, Alan Grimes wrote:
> =\
> For the last several years, the limiting factor has absolutely not been
> hardware.
How many years? How much OPS, aggregated network and memory bandwidth?
What is your evidence for your claim?
> How much hardware do you claim y
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:37:43AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou 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
Yes, it is precisely because the system is not intelligent enough.
> that disabling your o
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:24:17AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Nuclear weapons need a lot of capital and resources to construct,
They also need knowledge, which is still largely secret. The
number of people who could construct a crude working nuclear weapon
is below 1% (possibly, way belo
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
95 matches
Mail list logo
