norfzorf wrote:
] I remember reading de garis mentioned that the "trillions of
] trillions" of times smarter computer would need to be about
] the size of an asteroid. His simile was that these "artilects"
] would be to us, in terms of advancement, as we are to a single
] celled organism, possibly indifferent to our pathetic
] meaningless fate.

I meant to mention this in my last post. I hate it when AI people get on their high horse and say that with n many transistors xyz computer would be more powerful then the human brain. We don't understand how human brains work, so how can we claim to be building something that does the same stuff? I'm fairly certain that the human brain does not have an ALU at the heart of it. In fact is seems that humans are particularly bad at the sort of "thinking" computers do well, and vice versa.

They only way we can presently be assured of building something that works the way we do is to evolve it, because we don't know what we're trying to make. We'll probably understand how it works before we manage to evolve a replacement in silico, and if we did evolve a replacement, we could never be sure that we really had what we were looking for. (The turing test is an interesting philosophical game but if you consider it a real way to measure AIs you don't understand its meaning. The guy was going insane when he came up with it. Restate it as matrix will be successful when you can't tell the difference between it and the real world. Your inability to distinguish the two doesn't mean the difference is immaterial. It is as much a measure of your blindness.)

] "The “human striving” argument arises from the fact humans
] always seem to want to go beyond what is currently known,
] currently explored, currently achievable. Humans drive
] themselves to climb higher peaks, run faster, cure diseases,
] become stronger and fitter, become more brilliant, etc., etc.
] Why this constant pushing at the barriers? It must be built
] into our genes. Evolution has made us this way... If we have a
] better knowledge of the dangers and delights of the world that
] surrounds us, then we are more likely to survive"

I found your discussion insightful...

RE: Intel scientists find wall for Moore's Law | CNET News.com