From: Charles D Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 19:22:05 MST
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 02:09 am, H C wrote:
> You can't really agree or disagree about hard take-off.
>
> If the resources are available for hard take-off, then it happens. If
> computational resources are more limiting, then it won't be so hard of a
> take-off. How much resources are necessary for take off are strictly
> dependent on the actual specifications of the design.
>
> Unless you have an implemented design, you shouldn't be confident in the
> least about how hard you expect the take-off to be. Although certainly we
> would desire the take-off to be hard, and that is what would be strived
> for.
>
> -hegem0n
>
> >From: Russell Wallace <russell.wallace@gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
> >To: sl4@sl4.org
> >Subject: Re: JOIN: Joshua Fox
> >Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:22:31 +0000
> >
> >On 2/6/06, Peter de Blanc <peter.deblanc@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Singularity theory does not predict that the forces of history will
> > > inevitably lead the world to a utopia. It does predict that certain
> > > types of mind can very rapidly self-improve, such that previously
> > > difficult tasks become trivial.
> >
> >Strictly speaking, this is the "hard takeoff" school of thought, which not
> >all Singularitarians agree with. (I myself do not, though I would be
> >happier
> >if I did.)
> >
> >- Russell
While I can imagine hard takeoff scenario's that would be desireable, it's a
smaller percentage than of slow-to-moderate take-off scenarios. (Remember,
Accelerando is a *slow* take-off.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT