----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Leitl" <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: WAS: Re: Economic (ignorance) Nativism and me
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Emlyn wrote:
>
> > I'm betting on bio & computer science to beat any of these; I think
> > biological and intensive computional methods will beat out so-called
> > intelligent design, to all the big stuff. Of course, these methods will
be
>
> There's no point in compartmentalizing the different areas of human
> enterprise, they're all one team.
Just trying to be illustrative. Using bits of many different fields is good,
of course. Does anyone actually manage to do this, without becoming a
pariah?
>
> > extremely intelligently designed in themselves, and the direction of
humans
> > in the process will be vital, up to the point where gaussians become
> > obsolete.
>
> Unfortunately, I've ceased to expect innovation from Comp. Sci. types.
> That field stagnates across the border, a real pity.
>
> > Much of my justification for this point of view is that we have a big
push
> > in the biotech area now, which doesn't look likely to abate soon. This
> > emerging field is necessarily computationally intensive; see this fluffy
NYT
> > article, which talks about the fact that biology is using the most
computer
> > time at the moment of all the sciences:
>
> And they're only doing sequence yet. Very little structural work so far.
Lots of big fun to come...
>
> > Top quote from the article:
> > "If I were 21 years old, I probably wouldn't go into computing. The
> > computing industry is about to become boring. I'd go into genetic
> > engineering." - Larry Ellison
>
> I'd go into nanotechnology.
me too. Although it's all converging in the same direction eventually, yes?
Blue gene (etc etc) must go down as a forerunner, enabling technology for
what will be nanotech...
Say it to Larry - he might bet you a million dollars that "genetic
engineering" is better. If you are lucky.
>
> > Major computational resources, the smarts to use them, biotech
> > (cough*nanotech*cough) and a LOT of dollars will combine into something
> > which I think will beat the cognitive science approach to AI/IA/etc. We
are
>
> Are you talking about robust AI Minsky or Lenat style? That's pure snake
> oil they're peddling.
Slartibardfast offers to swap Arthur Dent's brain for an artificial one in
Hitchhikers'; the articificial brain was supposed to manage "yes", "no", and
"can I have a cup of tea?", if my long term memory serves. Sounds about in
the ballpark for handmade AI.
>
> > going to get the aeroplane before the bird. And, it sure as hell is not
> > going to be hand coded, although the systems that generate the systems
that
> > generate it may be, maybe.
>
> I agree very much. However, you'll observe that most of your peers don't
> (yet). So it will take a while still, unless some unknown hotshot whips up
> a killer demo, galvanizing the rest of them into frantic action.
> Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.
>
I have the sneaking suspicion that much is happening, and will continue to
happen, in the corporate world, behind closed (or at least only slightly
ajar) doors.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT