10-14 The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate by Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky - eugeneticainformatica analogiavscausalità tretransizioni rivoluzioneindustrialeconnessionetrafficoni cumuloconoscienzenopensieroscientifico
Chapter 10 AI Go FoomRead more at location 634
hand-coded AI will come soon and in the form of a single suddenly superpowerful AI.Read more at location 637
A machine intelligence can directly rewrite its entire source code and redesign its entire physical hardware. While human brains can in principle modify themselves arbitrarily, in practice our limited understanding of ourselves means we mainly only change ourselves by thinking new thoughts. All else equal this means that machine brains have an advantage in improving themselves.Read more at location 640
It seems as if you think object ones don’t increase growth rates while meta ones do.Read more at location 674
Chapter 12 Eliezer’s Meta-level DeterminismRead more at location 816
Note: Il metodi alternativi: H: analogie con contesti simili e analisi dei precedenti E: conoscenza dei meccanismi specifici del campo oggetto Le 3 transizioni analoghe: uomo, agricoltura, industria Cause: nn tanto la conoscenza quanto la messa in rete delle singole conoscenze. E: l' agricoltura raccontata da un ottimizatore. H dà + peso al caso e quindi alle capacità combinatorie del sistema. E dà+ peso all' intelligenza e al progetto. Edit
it seems the basis for Eliezer’s claim that my analysis is untrustworthy “surface analogies” vs. his reliable “deep causes” is that, while I use long-vetted general social science understandings of factors influencing innovation, he uses his own new untested meta-level determinism theory.Read more at location 826
The last three strong transitions were humans, farming, and industry, and in terms of growth rate changes these seem to be of similar magnitude. Eliezer seems to predict we will discover the first of these was much stronger than the other two. And while the key causes of these transitions have long been hotly disputed, with many theories in play, Eliezer seems to pick specific winners for these disputes: intergenerational culture, writing, and scientific thinking.Read more at location 866
Few could write and what they wrote didn’t help farming much. Farming seems more plausibly to have resulted from a scale effect in the accumulation of innovations in abilities to manage plants and animals—weRead more at location 871
Also for industry, the key innovation does not seem to have been a scientific way of thinking—that popped up periodically in many times and places, and by itself wasn’t particularly useful. My guess is that the key was the formation of networks of science-like specialists, which wasn’t possible until the previous economy had reached a critical scale and density.Read more at location 874
Note: INDUSTRIA: NETWORK DI TRAFFICONI E MASSA CRITICA DEL CAPITALE. NO PENSIERO SCIENTIFICO
