From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 09:34:03 MST
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Max M wrote:
> The argument goes: "After the singularity, we will be so intelligent and
> different that we will be impossible to understand for mere humans".
Not really, one of Eric's nanocomputers has the capacity of between
100,000 and 1 million human brains and its up against the power supply
and cooling capacity of known physics. So it isn't "impossible" to
understand. Its simply way beyond current capacities. But I can grok
10^6 people -- its somewhat smaller than the population of Seattle or
Boston and I've lived in both of those places.
> I know that there are ideas about Borganism's vs. Jupiter brains, but
> after that there are hardly any theories. These cannot be the only two
> topologies that are possible.
There are distinct differences between architectures and the capacities
of Jupiter Brains and Matrioshka Brains (I designed MBrains to deal with
a larger spatial distribution and some of the possible cooling problems
that JBrains might have). Anders has discussed several other possible
architectures in his JET paper from a few years ago (though he has
to depend on some pretty creative physics if I recall). Both Michael
Frank and Seth Lloyd have done some interesting work over the last
few years regarding the theoretical limits.
See: http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/
> If we don't develop some theories that are plausible and testable, we
> really have a poor argument for wanting to develop superintelligence.
I thought Eliezer, the Singularity Institute and some of the work by
Ben Goertzel and Peter Voss were going exactly in these directions.
The post today regarding the differences between how the human mind
looks at Chess and Go was quite interesting. The problem is that we
just don't understand what "intelligence" is effectively at this time.
> I don't think that "We want to become super intelligent, because then we
> will experience what it is like to be super intelligent." is a good
> enough argument.
>
> Any objections ;-)
We will never be able to explore the vectors of "intelligence" completely
(even with an MBrain). The phase space of what can be constructed using
robust nanotech is simply too large. The best we will ever be able to
do is pick some promising directions and try to explore those as best
we can.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:44 MST