From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 17:37:37 MDT
On Thursday 14 August 2003 11:22, James Rogers wrote:
> I think it is quite rational to assume that there is only one theoretical
> solution in the general abstract. With respect to real implementations,
> the efficacy of a particular design will drop quite rapidly as
> approximations of the theoretical ideal become poorer. Therefore, I would
> say that it is a reasonable assumption that all high-efficacy designs will
> look quite similar to each other.
On exactly what rational argument do you think this assumption is rational?
> Yes, there is a huge range of qualitatively different solutions that will
> work in theory. But given finite resource limitations, most of these
> solutions will be essentially worthless when competing with high-efficacy
> designs. Most functional differences between high-efficacy AGIs will be
> window dressing.
Isn't this another way of reiterating your fundamental assumption without
actually supporting it? I have no way of accurately guessing how many
equally efficient workable AGI designs there might be at this point.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT