4 ms·

No, I'm still not being clear. We can build buildings, bacteria cannot. We can build buildings because we can go to the library and read about structural integ

No, I'm still not being clear. We can build buildings, bacteria cannot. We can build buildings because we can go to the library and read about structural integrity and wood and steel. Today, we can get that information on our watches. Language allows us to amass information. More information means more power. Autonomous information collection is only limited by physical constraints (storage, power, etc). Autonomous information gatherers can then parse the information they amass--as efficiently as is possible--to work beyond these constraints and build new solutions; they can focus all time and energy to these ends as it would be all they do. AI doesn't need to sleep. Bacteria has no notion of being in control; of being powerful. Power in this sense is only possible with the context that language provides. Their motivation is simple binary. Eat, survive, reproduce then or die. AI, on the other hand, quite possibly will.

nazgul17 12y ago
By arguing that AI does not need to sleep, you are already making assumptions about how such AI is structured. I do not agree with such assumption. Whether we talk about a structure more similar to us (i.e. neural networks) or whether we talk about some n-th order logic, the AI needs to "sleep". I think in some way you could interpret caching mechanisms as sleeping. Also, many data-centers perform some operations daily at nighttime: I argue that that is a form of sleeping as well. AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end.
- obituary_latte 12y ago
  Another one lost to the wrong detail... God I suck at mouth. >AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end. You think. AI won't care what you think. Efficiency equals greater chance for survival. As with bacteria, we can break this down to a binary sequence: try to live/die. The difference between bacteria and AI is that AI has language -- a way to describe what to avoid that jeopardizes survivability. In addition, this advantage is exponential. I play with code in my day to day. Some might call it "software". Really what it is is a decision tree. Any piece of software you have ever come into contact with -- ever -- is just that: do this? Yes or no. Is it that? Yes or no. To suggest that a machine couldn't decide "yes or no" a million to one faster than we can is insane. So, given our previous hypothesis that more information means more power, how can we possibly win?

nazgul17 12y ago

By arguing that AI does not need to sleep, you are already making assumptions about how such AI is structured. I do not agree with such assumption. Whether we talk about a structure more similar to us (i.e. neural networks) or whether we talk about some n-th order logic, the AI needs to "sleep". I think in some way you could interpret caching mechanisms as sleeping. Also, many data-centers perform some operations daily at nighttime: I argue that that is a form of sleeping as well. AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end.

obituary_latte 12y ago
Another one lost to the wrong detail... God I suck at mouth. >AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end. You think. AI won't care what you think. Efficiency equals greater chance for survival. As with bacteria, we can break this down to a binary sequence: try to live/die. The difference between bacteria and AI is that AI has language -- a way to describe what to avoid that jeopardizes survivability. In addition, this advantage is exponential. I play with code in my day to day. Some might call it "software". Really what it is is a decision tree. Any piece of software you have ever come into contact with -- ever -- is just that: do this? Yes or no. Is it that? Yes or no. To suggest that a machine couldn't decide "yes or no" a million to one faster than we can is insane. So, given our previous hypothesis that more information means more power, how can we possibly win?