Item — HN Reader

God bless him; those pills are exactly what will kill him.

The singularity is coming, but Moore's law won't have much to do with it. I remember seeing a few-days-old kitten and for the first time in its little life, it saw a dog. It hissed.

We already have the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain. What we don't have is the software that can recognize a dog without having ever seen one before.

2 comments

What we don't have is the software that can recognize a dog without having ever seen one before.

Sure we do.

...................

Anyway, there is a problem with the notion of super-intelligent robots. Without getting too much into it, suffice to say that robots will be forced to subscribe to the same survival-of-the-fittest constraints that humans have. When you observe the human species, it might seem strange that there are so many people who enjoy rap music and nascar, and so few who enjoy calculating derivatives in their heads. But nature (read: survival of the fittest) has only portioned out a comparatively small number of superintelligent people in the world, for a reason. It will presumably do the same for robots.

That is, when robots are manufacturing themselves, a moderately intelligent "thug" robot, or "drone" robot, or "worker" robot, or "leech" robot will have certain advantages over a "sit and design better competitors for myself" robot.

Sure we do.

Really? And we have software that can recognize a cat from a dog (as that kitten can do)? And my face from yours even if I cover my ears (as the kitten will be able to do once it imprints)? I'd like to see that software!

The truth is Kurzweil and others are fooling themselves if they think this is a hardware issue.

> The truth is Kurzweil and others are fooling themselves if they think this is a hardware issue.

I agree that the state of that software is not there yet from what I've seen, but their workaround for the software limitations is to say we will model a working brain rather than inventing the software. If this is possible, it becomes a hardware issue.

>can recognize a cat from a dog (as that kitten can do)

The kitten did not recognize the dog as a dog. Just as a threat. Anything alive, moving, new and bigger is automatically labeled a threat until some clues (chemical = familiar smell, elapse of time without attack) teach the kitten otherwise. So there you have it.

How can you say the pills are dangerous without knowing what they are?

I'm channeling a pharmacist friend here. Either a pill has no effect (such as Vitamin-C) and just gives you expensive urine, or it has an effect. And if it has an effect, it has a side effect(s). No pharmacist in the world knows what would happen if you mix that many pills, whatever they are, and so, unless most of them are herbal non-drugs, he's taking a big chance, which is exactly what he's trying to avoid. Thus the irony.

Vitamin C has no effect?! That's not what mommy told me :(

Any references?

Linus Pauling died.

He's not the best example as he died at age 93.

Problem is we're way off being able to prescribe these things knowing with certainty that they'll work to our advantage. I'm saying that as a one-time biochemist and long-time pill pusher myself. Take selenium and prostate cancer. The picture is cloudy. A researcher in the field whose earlier work offered support for Se supplementation now wonders if it's such a good idea. Whatever Kurtzweil's taking, I hope it works for him.