From: Petter Wingren-Rasmussen (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2008 - 13:29:05 MST
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > For the purposes of forecasting the singularity, it
> > > makes little difference where our knowledge resides.
> > In my opinion it makes a huge difference. Since the knowledge can reside
> > within one entity indefinitely it has no inherent need to
> > communicate with others.
> Why would there be only one entity? There are 10^10 humans, most of whom
> would like to be immortal. If you mean a "global brain" or any kind of
> distributed implementation, then its parts will need to communicate.
> -- Matt Mahoney, firstname.lastname@example.org
I mean a self-expanding "global brain" that grabs the cpu needed for the
work it wants to do. The parts might need to communicate but that
communication will most likely be much more efficient than any communication
it can have with human beings.
I believe there is a risk it will choose not to communicate with us, unless
we take measures to prevent this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:41 MDT