Huw’s idea that intelligence will escape the constraints of biology is probably wrong. The reason is that machine intelligence will be biological. Siri, Google, Watson etc are firmly biological. Non-biologial things are rocks and stars—things to which the idea of cumulative adaptive evolution does not apply.
“Biology” is a standard dictionary term, which refers to the study of life. The claim that in the future the most advanced creatures won’t be alive is pretty outrageous. Pretty outrageously wrong, I would say. Not understanding this issue is a common confusion—which is why it needs pointing out from time to time.
(Found a bug in the implementation of the karma penalty: if an ancestor comment goes to −4, responses to any of its descendants will incur the karma penalty. So far, so correct. However, if an ancestor comment goes back from −4 to −3, and is thus eligible for answers without a karma penalty, that change will not propagate down the tree. I.e., I can make this comment, having upvoted the parent from −4 to −3, without a karma penalty. If I replied to Baughn’s +6 comment, however, the outdated karma penalty would still erroneously apply.
Why this comment? Explanation and proof in one: “The answer—by demonstration—would take care of that, too.”)
Huw’s idea that intelligence will escape the constraints of biology is probably wrong. The reason is that machine intelligence will be biological. Siri, Google, Watson etc are firmly biological. Non-biologial things are rocks and stars—things to which the idea of cumulative adaptive evolution does not apply.
That is not how people normally use the term “biological”, and in particular it’s not how Huw used it.
“Biology” is a standard dictionary term, which refers to the study of life. The claim that in the future the most advanced creatures won’t be alive is pretty outrageous. Pretty outrageously wrong, I would say. Not understanding this issue is a common confusion—which is why it needs pointing out from time to time.
(Found a bug in the implementation of the karma penalty: if an ancestor comment goes to −4, responses to any of its descendants will incur the karma penalty. So far, so correct. However, if an ancestor comment goes back from −4 to −3, and is thus eligible for answers without a karma penalty, that change will not propagate down the tree. I.e., I can make this comment, having upvoted the parent from −4 to −3, without a karma penalty. If I replied to Baughn’s +6 comment, however, the outdated karma penalty would still erroneously apply.
Why this comment? Explanation and proof in one: “The answer—by demonstration—would take care of that, too.”)