[FoRK] What will the big political issues be in the future?

daniel grisinger daniel at netgods.net
Wed Aug 4 14:16:20 PDT 2004


Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:12:44AM -0600, daniel grisinger wrote:
> 
> 
>>very interesting post this weekend on futurepundit.  what should
> 
> 
> Not really, most of it is rather naive projections. Of the
> "In twenty years half the population of Europe will have visited the
> moon.
> 				-- Jules Verne, 1865"
> variety.

Well, I didn't say I credited it, just that it was interesting.
Whether Parker's projections are accurate or not (and I've long
thought that he misses the forest for the trees), I am pleased
to see more analysis of what people expect to come next.

> The immediate future is here:
> 	http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/message/24083
> these trends will take a while to drift into productive population histogram
> range.

Missed that the first time it came across >Htech.  Thanks for the pointer.

>>i have serious doubts as to any projections that feature
>>vinge's notion of a runaway artificial intelligence, but
> 
> 
> It is a dark horse, and one changing all the rules of the game.
> You can't predict that but shortly before it happens. Probably not even then:
> the best way to predict it would be to invent and deploy it.

Ok, here's my problem with the entire runaway AI idea.

What this notion is doing is making a strong statement about
the relation between how hard it is to advance from one level
of intelligence to the next.  Basically, it's saying that after
some threshhold is reached intelligence will begin to accelerate
at some rate, say I(x) = 2^x.  But there's an implicit assumption
that that rate is faster than the rate at which the problem of
becoming more intelligent is becoming hard.  If how hard it is
to become more intelligent is described by H(x) = 2^x^x, then the
entire runaway becomes impossible.  Sure, you become 2^x smarter
at each step, but if the next step is 2^x^x times harder to take
you certainly aren't running away.


>>this was interesting nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Sure, to pick it apart and show why this is not even an analysis.

Yes, well, this is fork, after all.  :-)

d


More information about the FoRK mailing list