Re: No Biological Singularity

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 03:47:31 MDT

Brian Phillips wrote:

> Nothing Samantha and that is the point I was trying to make. If
> "true-augmented" in this context means genetically engineered humans
> designed to be of superhuman intelligence then Eli certainly has a point.
> But borging mature humans could happen much faster.
> For instance... say in 2010ish we have "Intel Inside" humans. What sort
> of OS will they be running to manage their own internal dataspace and
> it's interactions with the Net at large? The best they can find presumably!
> How much processing power could 2010 tech fit into a space..oh the size
> of a kidney? :)
> Eli how large (physically) do you anticipate the hardware neccessary to
> run
> an AI being?
> Would a Friendly transhuman AI prevent a human from "growing" an
> AI inside their own on-board dataspace? If they were trying to fuse
> or form a symbiosis with the nascent intelligence? Or is this yet another
> silly question ?

It would not be friendly if it did. I don't think any processing in a
human could match a full SI. However, I am more interested in what
happens when every human who wishes is augmented to have the equivalent
of a 200 IQ and is plugged seamless into a network of such humans as
well as AIs. This is quite doable technically in the near term. I
would think that such augmentation would take us to creating true SI and
help tremendously in managing our ramp-up to Singularity. There will
also be high pressure in many professions to augment. Unaugmented
humans will have a hard time keeping up with constantly wired, super
memory equipped competitors with extra semantic analysis, reasoning,
computational and bayseian analysis built in.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT