it's a good workaround, but subjected to bone-hard limits, surely.
-
-
Eventually. It'd just be more economical to focus on untapped neurophysiological optimization, or enhancing neuronal glucose metabolism, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
brain farms sound good.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @mfckr_ and
but, tbf, I have to agree with Nick that, if Moore's Law continues, carbon-based intelligence is just no economically worth the trouble.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Dunno. To me it's weird to assume that AI is going to somehow emerge if we just slap enough silicon + algorithms together.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
isn't that a good description of how human intelligence emerged?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Nobody knows. Intelligence is a black box problem that AI fanboys refuse to take seriously.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @mfckr_ @cyborg_nomade and
Probably safe to assume there's more to this than simply stringing enough neurons together until it crosses some complexity threshold.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Induce Darwinian dynamics at a sufficient scale, and you'll get there. Design hubris makes that peculiarly difficult to see.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @mfckr_ and
... VASTLY more human cognitive activity, over the coarse of history, has been dedicated to intelligence suppression, than its promotion. ..
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
... Most of what's needed for intelligence explosion is ripping the dampeners off.
-
-
In total agreement with you there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"How do we get AI?" "Stop suppressing AI." "But that would be capitalism, which is unkind!"
0 replies 2 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.