I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Sending a file over the internet costs a few cents at most. Can you explain?
I don’t think that was a relevant objection (at least not one that wasn’t already raised elsewhere). You can ignore it.
Yes it’s true that adult John von Neumann was good at physics and math and economics and so on, but bad at SQL, because after all SQL hadn’t been invented yet when he was alive. So it would take some time for John von Neumann to learn SQL.
I meant more that the optimal allocation of 1,000 Jon Von Neumann level agents isn’t for all of them to catch up to speed with modern maths, physics, economics. I think the returns from intellectual diversity/cognitive specialisation and division of labour would be greater. Probably we’d have most JVNs specialise in different subfields/branches, as opposed to trying to polymath all the STEM.
Doesn’t that also apply to groups of AGIs? If a clone of 25-year-old John von Neumann wants to build a chemical factory, then they he could spin off a dozen more clones, and one could go off and spend a few months becoming an expert in chemical engineering, and a second one could go off and learn accounting, and a third could go off and learn industrial automation, and so on, and then they could all work together to plan the chemical factory, gaining the benefits of specialization and division of labor.
I agree. I was saying that this need for specialisation/division of labour would introduce extra economic costs via retraining/reskilling and such. That I don’t think the society of AIs would instantly transform human society, but there will be a significant lead up time.
Probably we’d have most JVNs specialise in different subfields/branches, as opposed to trying to polymath all the STEM.
I think that’s entirely possible, I don’t feel strongly either way. Did you think that was the crux of a disagreement? I might have lost track of the conversation.
That I don’t think the society of AIs would instantly transform human society, but there will be a significant lead up time.
I agree about “instant”. However:
If “significant lead up time” means “not seconds or days, but rather more like a few years”, well, I don’t think a few years is enough to really make much difference.
If “significant lead up time” means “not years or decades, but rather more than a few centuries”, OK, that definitely moves the needle and would make me go back and rethink things.
And I’m at the first bullet point.
I notice that I wrote “in short order” in my parent comment. Sorry for not being clear. I was imagining a couple years, not instant.
I don’t think that was a relevant objection (at least not one that wasn’t already raised elsewhere). You can ignore it.
I meant more that the optimal allocation of 1,000 Jon Von Neumann level agents isn’t for all of them to catch up to speed with modern maths, physics, economics. I think the returns from intellectual diversity/cognitive specialisation and division of labour would be greater. Probably we’d have most JVNs specialise in different subfields/branches, as opposed to trying to polymath all the STEM.
I agree. I was saying that this need for specialisation/division of labour would introduce extra economic costs via retraining/reskilling and such. That I don’t think the society of AIs would instantly transform human society, but there will be a significant lead up time.
I think that’s entirely possible, I don’t feel strongly either way. Did you think that was the crux of a disagreement? I might have lost track of the conversation.
I agree about “instant”. However:
If “significant lead up time” means “not seconds or days, but rather more like a few years”, well, I don’t think a few years is enough to really make much difference.
If “significant lead up time” means “not years or decades, but rather more than a few centuries”, OK, that definitely moves the needle and would make me go back and rethink things.
And I’m at the first bullet point.
I notice that I wrote “in short order” in my parent comment. Sorry for not being clear. I was imagining a couple years, not instant.