Then how is that relevant to the argument in your OP?
I thought you were arguing:
Yudkowsky argues that there’s lots of room at the top for hardware that provides much more compute than human brains, and therefore supports much greater intelligence than humans. However, actually biology is efficient. Therefore there’s not much room at the top for hardware that provides much more compute.
That’s what I responded to in my top-level comment. Is that not what you’re arguing? If it is what you’re arguing, then I’m confused because it seems like here in this comment you’re talking about something irrelevant and not responding to my comment (though I could be confused about that as well!).
The specific line where I said “biology is incredibly efficient, and generally seems to be near pareto-optimal”, occurs immediately after and is mainly referring to the EY claim that “biology is not that efficient”, and his more specific claim about thermodynamic efficiency—which I already spent a whole long post refuting.
None of your suggestions:
E.g. why can’t I improve on heat by having super-cooled fluid pumped throughout my artificial brain; doesn’t having no skull-size limit help a lot; doesn’t metal help; doesn’t it help to not have to worry about immune system stuff; doesn’t it help to be able to maintain full neuroplasticity;
Improve thermodynamic efficiency, nor do they matter much in terms of OOM. EY’s argument is essentially that AGI will quickly find many OOM software improvement, and then many more OOM improvement via new nanotech hardware.
Then how is that relevant to the argument in your OP?
I thought you were arguing:
That’s what I responded to in my top-level comment. Is that not what you’re arguing? If it is what you’re arguing, then I’m confused because it seems like here in this comment you’re talking about something irrelevant and not responding to my comment (though I could be confused about that as well!).
The specific line where I said “biology is incredibly efficient, and generally seems to be near pareto-optimal”, occurs immediately after and is mainly referring to the EY claim that “biology is not that efficient”, and his more specific claim about thermodynamic efficiency—which I already spent a whole long post refuting.
None of your suggestions:
Improve thermodynamic efficiency, nor do they matter much in terms of OOM. EY’s argument is essentially that AGI will quickly find many OOM software improvement, and then many more OOM improvement via new nanotech hardware.