--- 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 cast > > metal? > > How about gas centrifuges,
Again, we're assuming that the terrorists steal the U235 rather than try and build a multibillion dollar facility. > materials resistant to > UF6, Aluminium. Check the Wikipedia: "Uranium hexafluoride (UF6), referred to as "hex" in industry, is a compound used in the uranium enrichment process that produces fuel for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It forms solid grey crystals at standard temperature and pressure (STP), is highly toxic, reacts violently with water and is corrosive to most metals. It reacts mildly with aluminum, forming a thin surface layer of AlF3 that resists further reaction." > casting uranium metal; Casting uranium isn't radically different from casting iron or any other kind of metal. Step 1: melt metal in electric-arc furnace. Step 2: pour molten metal into mold. Step 3: douse with water. Step 4: saw open mold and extract uranium. > or build nuclear > reactors Again, we're assuming that the terrorists aren't government leaders or billionaire corporate executives. > and separate transurans via ion chromatography? > (And if you thought processing uranium is hard, boy > will plutonium drive you to exasperation). Ion chromatographs aren't secret; you can even purchase them commercially (http://www.dionex.com/, http://www.lachatinstruments.com/, http://www.metrohm.com/). > > So? The number of people who could construct a > working > > radio if you sat them down at a table and gave > them a > > pile of spare parts is very small. This does not > mean > > A radio is a simple device. So is a nuke, but an AI > is not. Agreed. The point is that the number of people who can build a device now isn't the same as the number of people who can build a device given years of training. > > that it requires some kind of special expertise to > > Google up some basic electronics knowledge and > order a > > soldering gun, circuit board and other necessary > > tools. > > Right. So why can't we just Google up a > supercomputer cluster, > and download the rest from Sourceforge. Or, write it > from scratch, all done by a pimply teenager in his > parents' > basement? Doesn't sound that realistic, doesn't it. (sigh) That's not the point. > > > We still need some 20 years to come into that > range. > > > > Does anyone know how much computing power you need > to > > More importantly, how much computing power do you > need > to bootstrap an AI? I don't know yet, but it's some > six to nine orders of magnitude more. Okay, let me get this straight: You said you didn't know how much computing power it would take to bootstrap an AGI, and then in the *same sentence* you said how much computing power it would take to bootstrap an AGI. > > run AGI? Of course not, nobody has ever built or > even > > described a coherent, complete blueprint for > building > > AGI. > > Really? How about mapping by > co-evolutionary-algorithms the > parameter space of integer automaton networks and > their > morphogenetic genome driving embodied agents in a > superrealtime > reality simulator, selecting for task > accomplishement? Are you just trying to use big fancy words to confuse us? How do you know this would lead to an *intelligence*? Observation suggests that it is very unlikely to lead to intelligences, because we know that the conditions for creating life (and therefore evolution) are a lot more common in the universe that intelligences. > That's a plan of four lines, and you know, I have a > hunch it > would work. Have you ever done a large engineering project before? Hunches do not count. Anyone who used "I have a hunch it would work" for building something as simple as a bridge would get laughed out of the project. > And you wouldn't even need all the ops > the > biosphere has been crunching for GYrs, since you > take off > with an educated guess, and a very monomaniac > fitness function. > > > > > catch up to these supercomputers, stopping it > > > would be like trying to > > > > > > Add another couple decades. > > > > You know, there is this thing called the > "Internet", > > which any script kiddie can exploit to get > additional > > computing power. > > To recap, you're at that stage where supercomputers > are barely enough to bootstrap AI (some 20-30 years > from now), and you assume that a crypt kitty can 0wn > a cluster (it's hard, but it can be done, at least > for a brief while), and do something meaningful with > it? > Pardon if this strains my credulity a bit. Google "BOINC". It now has twice the power of IBM's Blue Gene/L. > And you do realize the rather critical difference of > a signalling mesh with <us latency and internode > bandwidth enough to connect major continents? It > would > be interesting to see what you could do with the > whole of Asia > full of millions of PS3 on FTH broadband, but the > current topology > (a tree, not a mesh) is going to put some severe > clamping > on your style. I do think it's a real possibility, > and > we should get diagnostics and segmentation hardware > into the network fabric. Again, we don't have any idea how parallelizable an AGI system would be, but assuming it can be done over PCs connected with broadband is the conservative assumption. Even if the initial system requires too much bandwidth, the AGI can always redesign itself. > > > > stop file sharing and software piracy. > > > > > > Everyone knows how to wripte a P2P application. > > > > Do you know how to write a P2P application? Do you > > $/=$_;$,=shift;$w=$a=shift;$k{+shift}=1;socket > S,2,1,6;bind S,&a;for(listen > S,5;$SIG{ALRM}=\&i;m! (\S+) > ([e-i])([^/]*)/!s&&($k{$w=$1}=$,eq$`)&&&$2){alarm > 9;(accept(C,S),alarm 0)?read C,$_,1e6:($_="$, $a > f".shift)}sub i{}sub t{socket > C,2,1,6;$k{$w}&&=(connect C,&a)?print C"$, > ".pop:0;close C}sub h{t"$_ i/"for > keys%k}sub > a{$w=~/:/;pack'CxnC4x8',2,$',split'\.',$`}sub > f{$w=$_,t"$1 $3/"for > keys%k}sub e{open C,'>',$3;print C $'}sub > g{open(C,'<',$3)&&t"$a e$3/".<C>;&h} What language is that in? It looks like an entry for the obfuscated C contest. > It's not my code, and it's bare-bones, but I should > be > able to do about that or better in a month or two > starting from scratch. Agreed- the point is there are many people who could write a P2P application even though they couldn't *right now* because they have no idea how one works. > There's some pretty hairy stuff in BitTorrent where > MNet > didn't quite reach, but MNet had a very good > engineering > basis going for it. > > > even know how to program? I do know how to > program, > > I don't know what knowing to program has to do with > AI It's your analogy. And how do you think you're going to build an AGI, or even an evolutionary program to bootstrap an AGI? Is it just going to magically pop up on the computer system? > (it's rather specialist physics, Specialist physics?! What the heck does an AGI have to do with specialist physics? > neuroscience, > hardware design, The hardware is already designed, by multi-billion dollar industries. I seriously doubt you're going to do better than Intel. > or at least large-scale number crunching, which is > quite > domain-specific). Large-scale number crunching requires programming ability. > But, yes, I do get by, enough to pay the bills. The point was that the vast majority of people are not programmers. > > but I have no idea how to write a P2P application; > I'd > > have to figure it out as I go. > > Good. Do you think you can figure out how to do AI > given enough time, in about the same manner you can > do for P2P? It's your analogy, don't blame me if it isn't realistic in every possible aspect. > And I don't have to tell you that studying nuclear > engineering will land you on a list for life, I already have studied some nuclear engineering over the Internet. Am I on a government list now? > and if > you start looking for information online on nuclear > weapon design, you will make an even more select > list. This information is *publicly available* to anyone who wants it, from bazillions of different sources. > Human experts don't come from a vacuum, and don't > operate in a vacuum. Assume that MIBs will be > breathing down your neck by the time you've done > your initial hiring, assuming AI is a watched > technology. It's not, not yet. Again, nobody in the government has the faintest clue what's going on with AGI, and it would be hard to convince them of AGI's importance even if we were trying. > > > Nobody knows how to > > > build an AI. If it's a large-scale effort the > > > knowledge can be controlled > > > for a long time. > > > > How exactly is anyone going to *get* the knowledge > in > > the first place? Physicists had to actively lobby > the > > government to start the Manhattan Project, which > had > > immediate military applications and had *the > physics > > Intelligent weapon control and battle management has > very immediate > military applications. Yes. Intelligent weapon control and battle management are not going to be incentives for AGI development any more than the need to store sound is going to be an incentive for laser development because lasers can be used to burn CDs. Using a full AGI for narrow military applications is an incredibly nonobvious way of doing it and it can't be justified to bureaucrats. > DARPA funds some of the best > stuff > there is. I would put the Urban Challenge right at > the > cutting edge; but I'm no AI expert. > > > already tested in the lab*. A nuclear physics > reaction > > is scalable; you can do the reaction with one > particle > > before you try it out on a whole mass of them. An > AGI > === message truncated === Message truncated already? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
