3 ms·
I would say the progress that humans have achieved by now was by hacking the Nature, we were able to do this because we are part of the Nature. so in order to p
by type0 10y ago
I would say the progress that humans have achieved by now was by hacking the Nature, we were able to do this because we are part of the Nature. so in order to produce the AI that would be capable of progress that humans are to do it needs to be a part of Nature. Such wet-ware computers already exist, look up DNA based computers, but those are highly constrained (and their io is terrible). The sort of intelligence we can get to the wet-ware based AI is probably will be better spend on improving our own intelligence by hacking own our brains.
> we could presumably build an energy-inefficient but smarter mind at some point.
So this smarter mind will probably be our own, but that would also be achieved by some sort of artificial means.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoSaying that "progress that humans have achieved by now was by hacking the Nature" implies that planes and computers are "hacking Nature" too, so this doesn't preclude a silicon brain, nor does it suggest the AI will have to be biology-based. Planes aren't biology based; in fact, we only cracked powered flight after we stopped trying to mimic birds. > So this smarter mind will probably be our own It's plausible for me too, but not because we can't do stuff outside what evolution did - just because it's usually easier to hack an existing system than to build a new one from scratch.
- type0 10y ago> hacking the Nature" implies that planes and computers are "hacking Nature" too Sure it does, because physical laws are a fundamental part of Nature
- TeMPOraL 10y agoNobody tries to build an AI that breaks laws of physics by virtue of existing :). If we're extending the term "Nature" to mean all reality, then silicon brains are a part of nature too.