

Slowing Moore's Law: Why You Might Want To and How You Would Do It - gwern
http://www.gwern.net/Slowing%20Moore%27s%20Law

======
3JPLW
_" [Whole brain emulations] are frequently regarded as being potentially
highly untrustworthy and dangerous, constituting an existential risk."_

Really? Are they? An ~8000 word article based on this one sentence, with
weasel words and no real rationale. Also, you seem to be confounding the
computing power required to emulate a brain ("straightforward engineering")
with the new imaging techniques that would need to be developed to scan and
"upload."

~~~
DanBC
[http://intelligence.org/files/WBE-
Superorgs.pdf](http://intelligence.org/files/WBE-Superorgs.pdf)

> _Because such emulations could be freely copied and run at increased speeds,
> they might quickly outnumber humans and be capable of performing almost any
> task more cheaply. Standard economic models suggest this could produce
> tremendous economic growth, perhaps doubling the size of economies every few
> weeks or less, but also driving wages for most jobs below human subsistence
> level (Hanson, forthcoming). Many have suggested that such rapidly
> replicating and evolving minds could cause human extinction if not carefully
> controlled (Bostrom 2002; Yudkowsky 2008; Posner 2004; Friedman 2008;
> McAuliﬀe 2001; Joy 2000; Moravec 1999)._

~~~
mmagin
So, we're the new Neanderthals?

While I'm somewhat convinced that human-equivalent or greater machine
intelligence will likely happen within the next hundred years (or less), good
luck convincing a majority of humans of that.

------
kazagistar
Wat.

People take their singularity BS way too seriously.

~~~
wmf
Yeah, the background part of this article is great but the idea that anyone
(especially governments) would voluntarily take a noticeable bite out of their
economy to avoid the very small risk of the evil singularity sounds like crazy
talk. (It just occurred to me that a comparison with climate change may be
possible.)

~~~
gwern
> the idea that anyone (especially governments) would voluntarily take a
> noticeable bite out of their economy to avoid the very small risk of the
> evil singularity sounds like crazy talk.

Absolutely. And I say as much, at length, in the OP.

> (It just occurred to me that a comparison with climate change may be
> possible.)

It is not just possible, but I actually make that comparison in the OP. (See
point 4 in the China section.)

~~~
wmf
Sorry, I didn't devote the time to read your article carefully and by the time
I reached the end I had forgotten the beginning. On second reading I find this
part a little odd: "...we would need to make a very solid case indeed - a case
I cannot make nor will make here. Let’s assume that the case has been made and
examine an easier question, how feasible such strategies are at accomplishing
the goal at all." It's almost like you're sabotaging your own argument by
saying that it probably doesn't matter but here are thousands of words on the
topic anyway. (I realize this has already been discussed in the other
subthread.)

------
gwern
Also, may I register my complaint to the Powers That Be about titles being
edited _yet again_? I chose the title I did to highlight the aspect of the
essay most of interest to HN readers; by editing the title to the original,
you are partially responsible for the hostile reaction in the comments here
where only one person actually replies to the content.

~~~
wmf
I think the Powers are beyond help. Battle not with SEO spammers, etc.

------
swamp40
I disagree with the author's conclusions that fabs are immune from terrorist
acts because a) fabs are too large, and b) terrorists are basically
dysfunctional.

I can think of several relatively simple methods to take a large building out
of commission.

And don't think for a second that terrorists don't know about all of them and
more.

~~~
gwern
> I can think of several relatively simple methods to take a large building
> out of commission.

I'm sure you could, as could I - drive up a truck filled with fertilizer comes
to mind. But that's not the question being asked, just attacking a random
large building - for example, a truck bomb wouldn't work for a chip fab,
though, which is relatively dispersed and well-guarded, and alternatives like
'send over one bomber and drop one daisy cutter on the complex' aren't
available to terrorists.

> And don't think for a second that terrorists don't know about all of them
> and more.

Please provide 3 examples of competent terrorists using your methods.

------
stcredzero
Serious attempts to colonize space might be a tremendous complication here.
There might arise a scenario where economics favoring the exportation of
outdated fabrication equipment combined with the relative ease of constructing
huge industrial facilities that are entirely in vacuum would result in a
proliferation of low-power devices in the off-Earth economy.

