From: Russell Wallace (russell.wallace@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 31 2004 - 20:16:41 MST
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:26:44 -0500, Eliezer Yudkowsky
<sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
> I know of no way for a recursive optimizer to change the laws of physics.
Me neither.
> (That doesn't mean no way exists; but it's not necessary.)
Yep.
> Strong RSI
> means that the part of the process that, structurally speaking, performs
> optimization, is open to restructuring.
Yes, that's what I understood you to mean by it.
> Human beings using their intelligence to directly and successfully modify
> human brains for higher intelligence, would be a very weak example of
> Strong RSI - *if* the resultant enhanced humans were smarter than the
> smartest researchers previously working on human intelligence enhancement.
>
> Human beings using their intelligence to collect favorable mutations into
> the human genome, or programming DNA directly, for the purpose of producing
> smarter children, would be a weak case of RSI arising (after a hell of a
> long time) from natural selection.
Yes; and both of these would in the long run encounter the same
fundamental problem that a Strong RSI AI must encounter, as far as I
can see. Again, the problem is, how do you know whether a putative
improvement is in fact an improvement? There is no way of finding out
other than by letting it run loose for an open-ended period of time,
in which case you're back into evolution by natural selection. Do you
think you have found a way to solve this problem? If so, how?
- Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:50 MST