From: Bradley Thomas (brad36@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 23 2009 - 18:48:27 MST
If you agree that people have advanced their well-being through the use of
their intelligence, it makes sense to extrapolate that the creation of a
higher intelligence (under the control of humans) will further advance
humans' well-being. Imo, whether such intelligence can be kept under the
control of humans is the big IF.
Brad Thomas
www.bradleythomas.com <http://www.bradleythomas.com/>
Twitter @bradleymthomas, @instansa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of Matt Paul
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 8:41 PM
To: sl4@sl4.org
Subject: Re: [sl4] The Jaguar Supercomputer
Ok, this is probably gonna get me banned...
I've been following SL4 for a while now. The discussions are certainly
intellectually stimulating in a "university" sense, but what I still don't
get is what exactly the perceived value of the AI you guys discuss is beyond
normal scientific desire to understand. I don't see the practical and
prudent value of a machine that acts like a human brain. Fascinating and
cool certainly, but I don't see the actual benefits to mankind. I do see
many potential problems for mankind though...
Rather than flame me for these statements, please answer my question. I
honestly am trying to understand the subject better.
Lizardblue
On Nov 23, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmahoney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
> How much complexity is in the genetic space for the development of a
brain? ex: total for all genetic encoding minus the parts about the bloody
viscera and redundant so-called junk-DNA =?= less than 10^9 Like you said,
nature just needs *a* brain - not an exact replica of a particular brain.
That's for a baby brain. To model an adult brain, you have to add to that
all the information learned since then.
-- Matt Mahoney, <mailto:matmahoney@yahoo.com> matmahoney@yahoo.com
_____
From: Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com>
To: <mailto:sl4@sl4.org> sl4@sl4.org
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 6:15:30 PM
Subject: Re: [sl4] The Jaguar Supercomputer
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt Mahoney <
<mailto:matmahoney@yahoo.com> matmahoney@yahoo.com> wrote:
When I say that the brain has 10^9 bits of memory, I mean its Kolmogorov
complexity. There are 2^(10^9) possible brains you can distinguish by their
behavior. (It happens to take 10^15 synapses to achieve that, however). So
the Kolmogorov complexity of the desired outputs for any traning set also
has to be at least 10^9 bits, or else there would be some brains that can't
be distinguished.
If your goal is to produce *a* brain (say, to pass the Turing test), and not
a copy of some particular brain, then I suppose you could get by with less.
How much complexity is in the genetic space for the development of a brain?
ex: total for all genetic encoding minus the parts about the bloody viscera
and redundant so-called junk-DNA =?= less than 10^9 Like you said, nature
just needs *a* brain - not an exact replica of a particular brain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT