3 ms·
Not to be a dick, but "they also might not". The article doesn't present many good reasons for believing augmented biological intelligence will be superior. Or
by sullyj3 11y ago
Not to be a dick, but "they also might not". The article doesn't present many good reasons for believing augmented biological intelligence will be superior. Or even what that means, ie, for how long? Obviously the human brain is an existing form of intelligence, so in that sense it may be easier to bootstrap from. But ultimately, augmentations to the brain would be limited by the requirement of being attached to a brain.
The space of augmented brains is a tiny subset of the space of possible intelligent systems. There's comparatively unlimited scope for superior designs to augmented brains within the realm of artificial intelligence, or "every other nonbiological intelligent system concievable"
It's possible to believe that augmented brains might get a lead in intelligence for a short period, they are limited by their format, and would ultimately be overtaken by superior designs.
With regards augmentation prostheses, Kurzweil makes a strong case in his book "how to Create a Mind", that anything you plug into your brain is bandwidth limited by how much information the brain can actually process at a time, in a similar way to how most things in our visual field are immediately discarded from working memory and we can only really email with the small set of visual information that we pay attention to.
- LogicFailsMe 11y agoSure, and the microsecond we achieve a high bandwidth connection to a new substrate is the same microsecond we start migrating our process out of cranial us-east-1 and its barely 99.99% availabity to the brand new shiny and crack open a huge can of legal and philosophical worms, no?
- randcraw 11y agoThe article (absurd as it is) not only overlooks all the engineering constraints in the integration of man and machine, but also focuses only on bigger and better, completely missing the alternate worlds that may arise. To modify the brain (and our sensors) will surely change the way we think, our emotions, and invite a totally different world view. How might that restructure our social dynamics, especially after the need for competition for limited resources abates or ends entirely? Also, the article completely misses the implications of the intermediate stages of man with machine, or Intelligence Augmentation (the real interpretation of IA). This is a much more immediate and plausible phase of the transition, and is already upon us in several ways. I recommend John Markoff's new book for more on the topic. There are many demerits to the article, especially given the wealth of more interesting alternative paths ahead.