Why things might have taken so long
meteuphoric.wordpress.com
Why things might have taken so long
1–10 of 194 posts
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#2> ‘Crude hacks’ get you most of the way there, reducing the value of great inventions.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#3This is also why true AI would advance very rapidly: no biology or society to stand in the way, few constraints re: self-upkeep, unlimited ability to record/analyze, ability to simulate variations of combining A&B, even when A or B seem useless in isolation...
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#4This is one of the primary takeaways I got from reading Sapiens. Our big brains didn't pay off for millenia, until they did, and in a big way. Most times, innovation isn't enough to beat the competition...you have to survive long enough for it to give you an edge.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#5This is also why true AI would advance very rapidly: no biology or society to stand in the way, few constraints re: self-upkeep, unlimited ability to record/analyze, ability to simulate variations of combining A&B, even when A or B seem useless in isolation...
True AI as in a true artificial thinking being? Or true AI as effectively a god?
All comments like this assume the AI is absolutely goal oriented toward self-improvement and self-propagation and has no limitations or competition. "No biology or society" - what about the physical hardware and infrastructure needed to maintain it? "Self upkeep" - so its directly connected to an entire automated vertically integrated supply chain and factory complex? "Unlimited ability to record/analyze" - again, where is it getting this infinite storage and processing capacity? "ability to simulate variations of..." - if it's truly intelligent in a way humans would consider intelligent, even massively moreso, why would it spend all its time random walking the solution space of everything?
If we are talking about AI as god, that can work, I suppose, but as someone who really likes transhumanism and the idea of AI in general, this idea of the sloughing away of all limitations and an AI actor totally dedicated with either the infinite and immediate improvement or replacement of itself makes no sense to me.
Am I missing something here, or is there just to much engineer whispering in the corners of my brain.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#6James Dyson always strikes me as a solid modern representation of just how difficult it is to actually invent (or re-invent) something new, very useful and commercially successful. He went through hundreds of variations and major prototypes on the vacuum cleaner over 5+ years. Even after he got a product he could commercialize, it took another 10-15 years to make it really take off. He spent two decades just to get the business to a point of true sustaining success, while fending off a global swath of well funded competitors at every price tier and quality.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#7Perhaps this is covered by the "crude hacks" category, but I'm reminded of the story of how the wheel was lost in Arabia. Technology doesn't necessarily provide a marginal improvement.
http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/197303/why.they.lost.th...
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#8This is also why true AI would advance very rapidly: no biology or society to stand in the way, few constraints re: self-upkeep, unlimited ability to record/analyze, ability to simulate variations of combining A&B, even when A or B seem useless in isolation...
True AI as in a true artificial thinking being? Or true AI as effectively a god? All comments like this assume the AI is absolutely goal oriented toward self-improvement and self-propagation and has no limitations or competition. "No biology or society" - what about the physical hardware and infrastructure needed to maintain it? "Self upkeep" - so its directly connected to an entire automated vertically integrated su…
> again, where is it getting this infinite storage and processing capacity
I agree with most all of your points. On that one, about where its resources are to come from (and thinking just in a fantastical manner on the topic): it's going to trade with humans, who will provide the things it needs to keep growing. For example, give people a 'free' search engine, that they find highly useful, which results in the humans funding the AI through ads/clicks, allowing for massive expansion of the AI infrastructure. You could apply the general concept to most any service an AI could provide. I'll give you this, you give me that, resulting in a dependency, with both sides occasionally trying to seize on an opening to acquire the upperhand in the arrangement.
Simply put, humans will trade with AI eventually. It's inevitable, and it's a critical aspect of how AI will self-expand. To ensure their own survival, they'll want to become so useful to humans that the humans don't kill (or try to kill) the AI, despite occasionally (or frequently) being afraid of its power / potential.
Want to build out the colonies in the US? You're going to trade with the British Empire and France, while trying not to piss off either enough that they destroy you (or try to). You want to be useful to them, enrich them, limit the extent to which you seem to pose a threat. You maintain an even keel until the point where you are no longer subservient. China has been a master at that the last 40 some years, they still behave that way today when it suits their long-term aims (playing down their strength at times, or playing it up at other times). As a concept, I think this represents a power dynamic that is universal between most living (aware, sentient, whatever) things, and the human-AI relationship will also play out that way.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#9This is one of the primary takeaways I got from reading Sapiens. Our big brains didn't pay off for millenia, until they did, and in a big way. Most times, innovation isn't enough to beat the competition...you have to survive long enough for it to give you an edge.
> Our big brains didn't pay off for millenia, until they did, and in a big way.
That's not how evolution works. Each step along the way must produce a net benefit or it gets discarded. Just as insect wings served as propulsion for water skimming before actual flight, big brains paid off, then got bigger and paid off some more, etc. The only hiccup is the benefit has to outweigh the cost (eg big brains need more calories).
Side note: I think our wide array of modern mental disorders are costs of our brains' continuing enlargement. I.e. brains are trying to figure out how to get even bigger and more powerful without also having OCD or schizophrenia.
Re: Why things might have taken so long
#10This is one of the primary takeaways I got from reading Sapiens. Our big brains didn't pay off for millenia, until they did, and in a big way. Most times, innovation isn't enough to beat the competition...you have to survive long enough for it to give you an edge.
> Our big brains didn't pay off for millenia, until they did, and in a big way. That's not how evolution works. Each step along the way must produce a net benefit or it gets discarded. Just as insect wings served as propulsion for water skimming before actual flight, big brains paid off, then got bigger and paid off some more, etc. The only hiccup is the benefit has to outweigh the cost (eg big brains need more calor…
Each step along the way must produce a net benefit or it gets discarded.
Maybe so, but the benefit could have just been individual fitness signalling (like a peacock's tail) without providing any advantage to the species as a whole until the big "payday".