3 ms·
There’s a very big difference between knowing “how” to solve a problem in a broad sense, eg “if we shared more we could solve hunger”, and “how” to solve it in
by bbor 2y ago
There’s a very big difference between knowing “how” to solve a problem in a broad sense, eg “if we shared more we could solve hunger”, and “how” to solve it in terms of developing discrete, detailed procedures that can be passed to actuators (human, machines, institutions) and account for any problems that may come up along the way.
Sure, there are some political problems where you have to convince people to comply. But consider a rich corporation building a building, which will only contract with other AI-driven corporations whenever possible; they could trivially surpass anyone doing it the old way by working out every non-physical task in a matter of minutes instead of hours/days/weeks, thanks to silicon’s superior compute and networking capabilities.
Even if we drop everything I’ve said above as hogwash, I think Vinge was talking about something a bit more directly intellectual, anyway: technological development. Sure, there’s some empirical steps that inevitably take time, but I think it’s obvious why having 100,000 Einsteins in your basement would change the world.
- nradov 2y agoAn AI-driven corporation wouldn't be able to surpass anyone doing it the old way because they'd still have to wait for building permits and inspections.
- mr_world 2y agoPermits and inspections might be the the reason for humanities downfall then, at what point does war become the more efficient option?
- samsartor 2y ago100,000 Einsteins in your basement would be amazing. You'd have major breakthroughs in many fields. But at some point the gains will be marginal. All the problems solvable by shear intellectual labor will run dry, and you'll be blocked on everything else.