Welcome to Age of Embodiment
 up a level
 post article
 search
 admin
 about
 rdf
 Karl's Fiction Writing Site
 parent
 thread


Re: Edisonian AI; or, the Technological Maximum
by Karl on Monday May 15, @07:43AM
I think a lot of the confusion is coming from a conflation of two ideas that I've been guilty of here: design and fabrication. It will take a very long time for fabrication processes to catch up to current physical theory (unless we evolve those to...). Meanwhile, design can leapfrog far ahead of what we're capable of actually building, potentially into a realm where increases in processing power do not add any value.

What I'm saying is that your personal genie will not be using design principles, or have deep knowledge, that's very different from early-stage Edisonian AIs. In its design skills it'll be more advanced than early systems in the same way that modern internal-combustion engines are more advanced than a model-T's--however much its fabrication skills may have increased. Unless new physical principles are discovered, it's not unreasonable to imagine that an AI two hundred years from now might not be able to design a given device any better than an AI twenty years from now. At some point we reach a stage where the limitation is not in the intelligence of the AI but in the physical possibilities of what can be realized. I am suggesting that barring new science, this point can be nailed down fairly concretely.

What this whole discussion reveals is that there is a subtext to people's understanding of technology--i.e. a superstitious belief that it has no limitations. If it has no limitations then it is a supernatural power. If intelligence (design) has no limits then it too is a supernatural power. This strikes me as unlikely; and if there are limitations to what is technologically possible, what would such limits look like? It is not too early in history to ask this question.

A technological maximum doesn't preclude any of the products of technology that are so dear to SF writers and readers, or fans of the singularity and posthumanism--except for the sort of Matrioshka brain world where everything's made of smart matter that spends all its time thinking real hard about something or other.

And I disagree that the specifications for a personal genie will always increase. Specifications for required items may always change, but that's totally in line with what I've been saying. "Always increase" sounds suspiciously like another supernaturally limitless capability. I can imagine that someone in the future could want things that they can never have.

  Related Links
  • Articles on Science
  • Also by Karl
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
    ( Reply )

    Re: Edisonian AI; or, the Technological Maximum
    by Ted Chiang on Monday May 15, @04:14PM
    Fair enough.

    I agree that there are limitations to technology. However, I doubt that there are limitations to human desire. There will always be people asking for more, whether or not they can get it.

    [ Reply to this ]
    • Re: Edisonian AI; or, the Technological Maximum
      by Karl on Tuesday May 16, @07:13AM
      Well, yes. As I said in the original posting, "The critical question for the future will not be 'what's possible', but 'what do you want?' and do you want it more than others competing to use the same resources?"
      [ Reply to this ]

     
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
    ( Reply )

    Powered by Zope  Squishdot Powered
      "Even if I should learn that the world would end tomorrow, I would still plant this apple tree today."
    -- Martin Luther

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest is owned and distributed by Karl Schroeder under the following license:
    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License. If you use this material please attribute it to Karl Schroeder. If you alter this material or make derivative works, please acknowledge that your aims and moral intent may be different than Karl Schroeder's aim for the original work.

    [ home | post article | search | admin ]