From: Nick Tarleton (nickptar@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2008 - 16:16:44 MST
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM, William Pearson <wil.pearson@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you accept that the rate of improvement of a learning system is
> bounded by the information bandwidth into it,
I can't see why this would be the case. Processing limitations
(including memory bandwidth) and algorithm efficiency seem much more
important.
> What do people think about the fruitfulness of developing this line of
> thought further?
It sounds like a good idea. Too bad we don't have a few spare
universes to do experiments in.
> When people start positing new physics that they tend to lose me. Yep,
> I know our physics isn't perfect. But reasoning using the possibility
> of new physics is a bit too much of a leap of faith for me.
Positing any *specific* new physics is a bad idea, but it's not
unlikely that our physics is incomplete in *some* significant way,
perhaps even one relevant to a hard takeoff.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT