From: James Higgins (jameshiggins@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 01 2001 - 18:28:35 MDT
At 10:58 PM 7/31/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>At 02:06 AM 8/1/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>> > Very true. But if we can get an AI to at least a 1.0 level, then
>>give it
>> > sufficient processing power so that it is much, much faster than a
>>human,
>> > it will progress on its own. Because it will make tiny advances
>>over time
>> > (on it's time scale) which would lead to 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, etc.
>>If 1.5
>> > takes more processing power, it could slow itself down some but
>>improve the
>> > quality of its thought.
>>
>>I don't quite understand this. Why place the threshold at 1.0? What
>>evidence is there indicating that the average human (plus AI
>>advantages such as codic cortex) is smart enough to progress to higher
>>levels of intelligence? Why not someone half as smart (0.5) or 1.5 or
>>7.0 or any other arbitrary number? I think you're being
>>antropocentric.
>
>Pick any number you like, but others on this list have argued, quite
>convincingly, that it would at least have to be intelligent enough to
>understand what it was doing. It is very unlikely that something with
>half the intelligence of an average human could comprehend AI
>software. And, so far as I've heard, no one on here is building a "Codic
>Cortex" into their software. I believe that is something that is expected
>to develop eventually. I think your being picky.
My apologies, I think I was in a bad mood. Actually, I'm quite certain of
it since I had just had an argument moments before. My point stands, but
please forgive the tone.
James Higgins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT