3 ms·
What's absurd is to have a strong conviction about inviolable restrictions on systems that haven't been imagined yet. The examples you cite aren't even compelli
by foobarqux 12y ago
What's absurd is to have a strong conviction about inviolable restrictions on systems that haven't been imagined yet. The examples you cite aren't even compelling on their face.
For instance if you include whole-brain emulations in AGI (and we should because the consequences are essentially the same) it would take zero time to train. But even without whole-brain emulations a child learns rapidly from its environment alone. An AGI could conceivably do the same but faster, and moreover could take advantage of access to the Internet.
I don't know what information theory has to do with any of that.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago>What's absurd is to have a strong conviction about inviolable restrictions on systems that haven't been imagined yet. AGI has already been imagined. And yes, it does have to obey the laws of information theory: only one bit of knowledge can be learned from sensory inputs with one bit of entropy. >An AGI could conceivably do the same but faster, and moreover could take advantage of access to the Internet. Children still take 20 years to grow from infancy to being useful adults. If we hypothesize that an AGI could learn, say, 10x faster, we're assuming a two-year training time.
- foobarqux 12y agoAll the manifestations of AGI have not been imagined, and even ones that have like WBE refute your claims. Even if you could somehow create a model precise enough to talk about information theory (define a symbol universe, map information to knowledge, itself a not-well defined term) it would not seem to be restrictive. Again, children take in a massive amount of sensory input. Finally, the singularity hypothesis is that AGI could learn exponentially faster, not merely 10x. And again, WBEs don't need to learn at all.