4 ms·

But computation doesn't improve the rate of computational progress. As long as it's people developing computing devices, that holds. But when you have a machin

But computation doesn't improve the rate of computational progress. As long as it's people developing computing devices, that holds. But when you have a machine that is capable of improving its own software, you get a self reinforcing loop where computation improves the rate of computational progress.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
Intelligence doesn't even have to feed on itself. Imagine a human-level hardware designing AI. As long as Moore's law applies, it can double its computational power every 18 subjective months. From our point of view, that's 18 months, then 9, then 4.5… If Moore's law where unlimited, such an AI would have infinite computational power in 36 months, with absolutely no increase in actual intelligence. But of course Moore's law is limited. Still, we could expect quite a bit of progress from a mere AI hardware designer.
- wcarss 14y ago
  I do not believe that that is what Moore's Law means or how it works. Perhaps I just mistook your meaning - what do 'subjective months' mean? Why do they mean that the doubling time starts halving?
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    I mean this: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamber http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamber When hardware is twice as fast, the AI works twice as fast. In 9 months, it will do 18 months worth of work. Now keep the doubling up, and it will have done infinite work after 36 months.
- TheComedian 14y ago
  This assertion is groundless. Why would Moore's law accelerate? In fact, Moore's law is currently decelerating and gains are increasingly harder to find. Further, Moore's law says nothing about computational speed, but only the density of transistors. These two are related but not identical. Edit: also, from my understanding, the gains in transistor density largely depend on new discoveries in physics. Before a computer can aid in accelerating Moore's law it would need to be sufficiently advanced to generate new discoveries in physics, but at this point you'd have a computer smart enough that it Moore's law wouldn't matter much. Seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    Transistor count and computational are so tightly correlated that's nitpick. Now I did not assume "Moore's law" would accelerate. I assumed it would stay constant. The key point comes from the fact the AI (or AI hive) would trivially benefit from hardware speed-ups. And yes, Moore's law won't really count, compared to the rest we will be able to do. I was just trying to be as conservative as possible. (Though Moore's law still holding until strong AI is quite wild).
- joe_the_user 14y ago
  Further, if we build a human-like intelligence on a chip, this would plausibly be a highly parallel algorithm. By that token, you wouldn't need more transistors-per-inch, you could use chips that snap-together with high bandwidth connections and perhaps some longer-distance traffic control connections. The kind of design isn't an NP-complete problem but it certainly could be helped by a powerful AI. Also, Moore's Law is breaking for speed but not for transistors-per-inch. That's why we're seeing multicode chip now.

loup-vaillant 14y ago

Intelligence doesn't even have to feed on itself. Imagine a human-level hardware designing AI. As long as Moore's law applies, it can double its computational power every 18 subjective months. From our point of view, that's 18 months, then 9, then 4.5… If Moore's law where unlimited, such an AI would have infinite computational power in 36 months, with absolutely no increase in actual intelligence. But of course Moore's law is limited. Still, we could expect quite a bit of progress from a mere AI hardware designer.

wcarss 14y ago
I do not believe that that is what Moore's Law means or how it works. Perhaps I just mistook your meaning - what do 'subjective months' mean? Why do they mean that the doubling time starts halving?
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  I mean this: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamber http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamber When hardware is twice as fast, the AI works twice as fast. In 9 months, it will do 18 months worth of work. Now keep the doubling up, and it will have done infinite work after 36 months.
TheComedian 14y ago
This assertion is groundless. Why would Moore's law accelerate? In fact, Moore's law is currently decelerating and gains are increasingly harder to find. Further, Moore's law says nothing about computational speed, but only the density of transistors. These two are related but not identical. Edit: also, from my understanding, the gains in transistor density largely depend on new discoveries in physics. Before a computer can aid in accelerating Moore's law it would need to be sufficiently advanced to generate new discoveries in physics, but at this point you'd have a computer smart enough that it Moore's law wouldn't matter much. Seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  Transistor count and computational are so tightly correlated that's nitpick. Now I did not assume "Moore's law" would accelerate. I assumed it would stay constant. The key point comes from the fact the AI (or AI hive) would trivially benefit from hardware speed-ups. And yes, Moore's law won't really count, compared to the rest we will be able to do. I was just trying to be as conservative as possible. (Though Moore's law still holding until strong AI is quite wild).
joe_the_user 14y ago
Further, if we build a human-like intelligence on a chip, this would plausibly be a highly parallel algorithm. By that token, you wouldn't need more transistors-per-inch, you could use chips that snap-together with high bandwidth connections and perhaps some longer-distance traffic control connections. The kind of design isn't an NP-complete problem but it certainly could be helped by a powerful AI. Also, Moore's Law is breaking for speed but not for transistors-per-inch. That's why we're seeing multicode chip now.