Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

yudkowsky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#21

Post by Retric »

listic wrote: post #18
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC r…

Are there any real signs of progress in computers that could lead to them achieving human level intelligence? Look, computer beat world champion in chess over 10 years ago, but is nowhere close to doing that in Go anytime soon: http://ru.ly/34

Like CAPTA's? I would say the number of things computers can do better than people is growing. They are not unified in a single project but computers are gaining around 100x the computational ability every 10 years so the gap between 1% as smart as a human and human level intelegence can close rapidly.

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/out_of_the_blue.php?pag...

Granted the human brain has around 100 billion neurons vs 10,000 neurons, with about 30 million synaptic connections between. However 100,000,000,000 / 10,000 is only 1/10,000,000 which is around 30 years unless the software becomes more efficient.

PS: I don't think directly simulating a brain is the most efficient method of reaching human level AI but it's hard to see how it would fail.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#22

Post by gjm11 »

nandemo wrote: post #16

Granted, it's painful to lose a dear one. But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start. Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!" "When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' " I mean, can one really say that seriously , outside of a poor SF…

It makes sense to (at least) the extent that you have grounds for thinking that the-way-things-are can be changed, which Eliezer does. In any case, he's describing how he feels, and it's not obviously wrong to feel "angry enough to do X" just because X is impossible.

What exactly is your objection? That EY et al think death can be more or less completely abolished, and that's obviously wrong, so they're probably being irrational? (If so: why is it obviously wrong?)

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#23

Post by aswanson »

greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

You can boil any human aspiration evocative of hope, happiness, and progress to this defintion of "religious". Does this invalidate the drive?

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#24

Post by jcl »

mad44 wrote: post #5

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that…

I am reminded of a few lines from a talk by Richard Feynman:

For instance, the scientific article may say, "The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of the rat decreases to one-half in a period of two weeks." Now what does that mean?

It means that phosphorus that is in the brain of a rat -- and also in mine, and yours -- is not the same phosphorus as it was two weeks ago. It means the atoms that are in the brain are being replaced: the ones that were there before have gone away.

So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week's potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago -- a mind which has long ago been replaced.

To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out -- there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday.

I found this fascinating: what we are is patterns. We have a built-in desire to extend the patterns for as long as possible, but at the same time we don't want to preserve the patterns in a fixed state, or we would never learn or grow.

Simultaneously, we are part of larger patterns which -- like the atoms in our brains -- we enter into, subtly alter, then leave. Until we have better ways of extending life, our influence on the larger patterns is the most enduring thing we can have. It is some comfort against the prospect of annihilation, however small.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#25

Post by newsycaccount »

yters wrote: post #10
greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

And the 2nd law of thermodynamics is another gotcha, as I posted in the other Yudkowsky thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=377510 Someone thought maxwell's demon and the fluctuation theorem provided a way around the 2nd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=110074 but I'm not convinced: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=377625 "Thanks, those are interesting link…

How about a tiny, molecular sized ratchet, that would absorb vibrations due to heat and turn one way, but refuse to turn the other way due to it's ratchet teeth. These could then be hooked up to a generator for free power.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#27

Post by newsycaccount »

yters wrote: post #8
mad44 wrote: post #5

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that…

Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."

Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#28

Post by sharkfish »

sharkfish wrote: post #15

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient beings annihilated every day. I would like to think that I, as an atheist, don't have to rationalize the unknown and accept that we just don't have the answers to the "why" of death. I realiz…

Modded down because I'm an atheist, or because I imply that religion is dogma? Just curious.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#29

Post by pfedor »

gjm11 wrote: post #20
mixmax wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarcity means that the curve will break. The singularity is the notion that the growth will continue indefinitely at an ever wilder pace until it reaches a singularity. I'm saying it won't happen because technological advance will run into scarcity of resources, just like any other complex system. Malthus was just an example of this, since his thinking was much the same as Kurzweil's in regard to extrapolation of da…

"Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.

One thing I never got: sure, it's certainly possible that one day the technology will come into existence that will create beings (be it computers or genetically modified brains or whatever) that will be as superior to humans as we are to ants or rabbits. How on Earth does the singulatarian paradise follow from this premise? Doesn't it seem at least just as likely that those super-intelligent creations will eradicate humans, or enslave them, or do something to them which we don't have a concept for in our limited brains, and which is different from happy immortal existence?

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#30

Post by robg »

aswanson wrote: post #23
greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

You can boil any human aspiration evocative of hope, happiness, and progress to this defintion of "religious". Does this invalidate the drive?

To me, it validates the drive. Just as language is universal, so is the effort to make meaning. Those two qualities bind us as humans.
Post reply on HN