[FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW

[glen]

Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.

https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m

On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
> 
> The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all respects, including come up with creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide goods and services to all in the world,
> 
> Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be very different indeed.
> 
> To quote Sam Altmen at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>  :
> 
> "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is what matters.   Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and there will be leakage between components.   A large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes.   The unrolling would be inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from interference.
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of glen
>     Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
>     To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
> 
>     I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
> 
>     On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>      > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ