Re: Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years

Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DK wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Seems to me like I can say it now, without much fear of correction:

You don't need to model biological systems to be able to beat them.

Machines can travel faster than any animal - and they use wheels,
not legs.

They can fly faster than any bird - and they use jet engines,
not muscles.

....and so on.

Except that you were taking about "beating" humans in terms of
*takeover*. All the things you mentioned above - they beat us
because we *made* them to.

We will build machines that think better than us for just the
same reason. When machines are faster, stronger *and* smarter
than us, our days as a dominant species will be numbered.

Without us, they are just piles of atoms. To displace us,
they either need to be smart or extremely self-sustainable
and efficient.

I'm taking it for granted that machine intelligence will
outstrip human intelligence within 50 years. It looks
like the hardware capabilities will be there - in $500
hardware - within 20 years.

LOL.

Moravec puts current $1000 computer/brain capacity about level
with a lizard:

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/power.150.jpg

Bad URL.

Hmm. I try again:

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book97/ch3/power.150.jpg

Works now. We obviously have very little common ground here.

Whoever are people producing these graphs, they are quite
obviously people who have next to zero knowledge of biology.
99% of biochemists/cell biologists/physiologists are likely to just
laugh at it and never take it seriously.

I certainly can't take it seriously. Fists, any of such extrapolations
presume that we know how brain functions and what it takes for it
to function. The truth is: WE HAVE NO CLUE. Second, when such
extrapolations include claims of Apple II having more "processing
power" than bacterial cell (whatever it means in this context ...
"intelligence"???), NO ONE who has remotest idea of how complex
and completely unpredictable a single cell can be, can look at them
at anything but crazed fantasies.

We are still at a level where we cannot predict with more than 50/50
probability the consequences of a single change in a single protein
even when we know 3D structure of this protein! Comparing this
to an Apple II is a travesty of a science. Anyone doing it is a
charlatan.

DK

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... being would agree that if robots are programmed to make other robots, ... machines is pretty silly. ... I am only pointing out that technology and biology have MANY ... The hypoth is NOT based on ALL being shared. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: [OT maundering] was Re: HTML5
    ... level of imaginative grasp! ... argument that biology needs to go down the path of theory that is not ... purely classical machines. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: sawtooth circuit modeling?
    ... teaching half-of-a-course on systems biology, ... Mathematica. ... the machines don't have a circuit simulator. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)