I can’t really accept innovation as random noise. That doesn’t seem to account for the incredible growth in the rate of new technology development. I think a lot of developments are in fact based on sophisticated analysis of known physical laws—e.g. a lot of innovation is engineering versus discovery. Many foundational steps do seem to be products of luck; such as the acceptance of the scientific method.
Trivially, we observe in the world that more innovations happen where there are more scientists, scientists with higher IQs, scientists spending more time on research, densely connected scientists, subjective time for scientists to think, etc. These are inputs that could be greatly boosted with whole brain emulations or not-even-superhuman AGI.
In going beyond what is already known, one cannot but go blindly. If one can go wisely, this indicates already achieved wisdom of some general sort [...] which limits the range of trials.
As I have argued here it is a rather misleading idea.
There may be a random component. As Steven Johnson says: “Chance favours the connected mind”.
I can’t really accept innovation as random noise. That doesn’t seem to account for the incredible growth in the rate of new technology development. I think a lot of developments are in fact based on sophisticated analysis of known physical laws—e.g. a lot of innovation is engineering versus discovery. Many foundational steps do seem to be products of luck; such as the acceptance of the scientific method.
Trivially, we observe in the world that more innovations happen where there are more scientists, scientists with higher IQs, scientists spending more time on research, densely connected scientists, subjective time for scientists to think, etc. These are inputs that could be greatly boosted with whole brain emulations or not-even-superhuman AGI.
This sounds like Campbell’s:
As I have argued here it is a rather misleading idea.
There may be a random component. As Steven Johnson says: “Chance favours the connected mind”.