tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post3439954797639363274..comments2024-03-28T03:22:24.202-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: Technological versus Subjective AccelerationBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-1727935006157005382022-08-27T07:41:15.766-04:002022-08-27T07:41:15.766-04:00This blog is not so relatable for me because I was...This blog is not so relatable for me because I was searching for the best <a href="https://seoexperts.pk/youtube-seo-services" rel="nofollow">youtube seo services</a> providing firm in Karachi which helps me to rank my YouTube content because my competitor is using paid traffic. I am not trying to rank my content in an illegal way but I want to rank it by the excellent use of unique online marketing strategies which is only possible by SEO Specialists.Sufia Arsalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05563679160174803063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-4300098697452527592007-06-10T19:16:00.000-04:002007-06-10T19:16:00.000-04:00RE: music...I think you should check out some danc...RE: music...<BR/><BR/>I think you should check out some dance or electronic music. These are whole genres spawned by the creation of synthesizers and software synthesis of sound.<BR/><BR/>In particular, psytrance, IDM and the current wave of electro-breaks are all mostly machine generated apart from the lyrics... and the lyrics are usually mashed/chopped and altered substantially too. I've got some stuff downloadable from my mixblog:<BR/><BR/>http://jetpilot.ferrouswheel.info/<BR/><BR/>Although IDM is probably the only one that starts mucking around with erratic or fractal beats - and it won't be everyones cup of tea!Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553956421702519382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-19724036133446503392007-05-18T04:14:00.000-04:002007-05-18T04:14:00.000-04:00Thanks for explaining this so clearly. I'm with Mr...Thanks for explaining this so clearly. I'm with Mr. Goetz; I think a singularity is not near, for this reason.<BR/><BR/>You say that technology is growing exponentially even though human usage of it is not. However, the whole reason that one might expect an exponential increase in technology is that one expects a positive feedback loop in which the rate of technological development is proportional to the amount of existing technology.<BR/><BR/>But if there is an inherent human limitation in how fast we can integrate new technology, then this will prevent us from rapidly utilizing new technology to produce more new technology -- so the feedback loop is broken.<BR/><BR/>Symbolically, if the rate of tech growth was proportional to the amount of tech we already have, we'd have the differential equation "tech' = k*tech" for some constant k, the solution of which is an exponential. <BR/><BR/>But a model with an inherent limit on speed of technological absorption yields only polynomial growth after that limit is reached:<BR/><BR/>tech'' = human_usage(tech)<BR/><BR/>human_usage(tech) = min(k*tech, inherent_limit) <BR/><BR/><BR/>In this model, after the limit is reached, acceleration becomes a constant, and we get "tech = O(time^2)" (which is not exponential but is admittedly still pretty fast). <BR/><BR/>Of course, once we can modify our minds or create other minds this "inherent human limit" might disappear. But I argue that that point is a long way off. If we're already being limited by the tech absorption bottleneck, then the velocity of tech increases only linearly from here on out. Because it seems that there is an enormous amount of research left to be done before we can make ourselves smarter or create A.I. smarter than us, I don't expect that point to be reached soon.<BR/><BR/>One mitigating possibility is that economic development could greatly multiply the number of professional researchers in the world; which might almost multiply the velocity of technology.<BR/><BR/>I apologize in advance if I've made any mistakes in the math or otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-18660741207697630202007-05-15T09:36:00.000-04:002007-05-15T09:36:00.000-04:00A reply to Eric Ramsay's comment: Yes, indeed!We b...A reply to Eric Ramsay's comment: Yes, indeed!<BR/><BR/>We built a prototype system for the NIH Clinical Center that used NLP technology to read biomedical research abstracts, extract logical relationships therefrom, and then do reasoning to figure out new biological knowledge not contained in any of the individual abstracts.<BR/><BR/>The final production system was never completed due to issues w/in the NIH, but, the principle was demonstrated (and presented at the bioNLP workshop of the 2006 ACL conference). Well enough to make clear to me that even a pretty simple, subhuman narrow-AI system could make loads of scientific discoveries by putting together the pieces that are out there, right now, online.<BR/><BR/>-- Ben GoertzelBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-7109900573884730872007-05-15T08:33:00.000-04:002007-05-15T08:33:00.000-04:00Ben, what you are saying here is really just anoth...Ben, what you are saying here is really just another variation of another problem that has been going on for even longer. Lord Raleigh was probably one of the last physicists who was competent in the entire field of physics. Since his time, physics/math (and all other disciplines of science) have ballooned into these enormous edifices that no one brain can any longer hold. As a consequence of this, there must be a tremendous amount of discoveries that the human race could be making right now but aren't, because there is no one brain looking at the total amount of knowledge available and synthesising it. Einstein had to be introduced to Reimann topology by a colleague in order to discover how to write down General Relativity. Today, similar things seem to be happening with string theory. Think of the vast amount of chemistry that sits in rows and rows of research papers all over the world. Just imagine the startling advances that a super intelligence could produce from that body of data if it could be assimilated all at once. The age of the AGI is certainly at hand due to necessity as this exponential knowledge increase will soon be followed by an exponential ignorance of knowledge as the amount that the human brain can soak up gets smaller and smaller.<BR/>Eric B. RamsayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com