Live data from Hacker News

Why things might have taken so long

meteuphoric.wordpress.com

11–20 of 194 posts

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#11
post #4

This 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.

More precisely, each step must not impose a net fitness cost or it gets selected against to a degree positively linked to the degree to which it imposes a net cost. But that's, more importantly, each genetic variation taken in total, not actually each individual phenotypic effect of the genetic variation (e.g., sickle cell trait was preserved not because sickle cell anemia is not a net negative, but because the malaria resistance that comes even when an individual is heterozygous for the trait is a strong benefit that manifests more often than sickle cell disease which occurs when an individual is homozygous for it.)

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#12
Nothing much (in percentage terms) got invented until the industrial revolution. The question is why the industrial revolution took so long. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend A Farewell to Alms [0] - warning controversial hypothesis, but it raises lots of interesting topics to think about.

0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#13

Nothing much (in percentage terms) got invented until the industrial revolution. The question is why the industrial revolution took so long. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend A Farewell to Alms [0] - warning controversial hypothesis, but it raises lots of interesting topics to think about. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

What have the Romans ever done for us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fRo5-p9hE

http://peterburk.github.io/pliny/ChaptersHtml/0/1.%20PlinyPe...

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#15

This 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…

> an AI actor totally dedicated with either the infinite and immediate improvement or replacement of itself makes no sense to me.

If I decide that a problem is so hard that the best solution is to invent a superhuman AI to solve it, then this is an approach that human-level intelligence can come up with, so a superhuman intelligence can too.

Self-improvement and self-replacement are probably not an AI's actual goal, they're just things that are useful to most potential goals that an AI can have. (And they're easier for the potential AI because the prerequisite research has already been done at that point.)

(If you knew I was trying to either cure cancer or colonize mars, you could predict that I'll start raising money, even though those goals don't have much in common.)

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#16
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> an AI actor totally dedicated with either the infinite and immediate improvement or replacement of itself makes no sense to me. If I decide that a problem is so hard that the best solution is to invent a superhuman AI to solve it, then this is an approach that human-level intelligence can come up with, so a superhuman intelligence can too. Self-improvement and self-replacement are probably not an AI's actual goal,…

> If I decide that a problem is so hard that the best solution is to invent a superhuman AI to solve it, then this is an approach that human-level intelligence can come up with, so a superhuman intelligence can too.

It can try, but it doesn't mean that it would success at it.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#17
About not having invented anything: it's harder to invent something novel today simply because so much has already been invented and knowledge of it is available.

Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent (we should be able to fly, to stay under water longer, to copy books faster, to notate music… ). It still took a lot of work to actually realize the invention (which only could be done by people wealthy enough to dedicate the time or get patronage from a wealthy source).

Today, we've run low on the scope of reasonably easy to invent things that are actually valuable. All the obvious "wish we could X" things have been done or are nigh impossible for any one person or small team to figure out (or flat out impossible). Innovation in areas like AI or medicine or battery tech — that stuff is all being actively worked on and requires massive funding of teams of advanced specialists. We're not going to see some person just invent something around these things the way multiple people independently invented forms of rope in prehistory.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#18
AI currently evolve under a human environment. Its success to next gen all based on human selection even if it is self breeding ( the guy just lost funding whilst it ...)

Hence we are still in AI-human coevolve stage. When some AI leaks to internet and survive there as Like bots and evolve (not necessarily self aware) it would be a different. When it start to find a way to get enemy and declare independence it would be even more different.

Alphago takes years to do CO-human-game-player-evolution but 3 days for go and a couple of hours for chess. May be it could be shorter than we thought.

The Egyptian Slave will go to the promise land leaving their master behind.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#19
The post touches on the idea that the number of human beings that exist today far exceeds those in the past. Interesting thought. We are now like a cpu (collectively speaking) with 7 billion cores vs 50,000 years ago would only be about 10-100k in numbers.
Post reply on HN