Hacker News Reader

Comment by Herring | Hacker News Reader

"No one - not even a Bayesian superintelligence - will ever come remotely close to making efficient use of their sensory information..."

We can settle that now...

[PDF] Physical limits to computation: http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_natu...

Eye: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uops-prc07260...

So if the eye does 10 million bits/sec & the 1 kg ultimate computer does 10^51 oper/sec on 10^31 bits, I think there's a good chance a Bayesian superintelligence can do it.

That computer may not be buildable, & you might have instruments with somewhat more bits/sec, but there's a LOT of room to work with.

View on HN

The eye may receive 10 million bits per second, and the optic nerve and brain do a marvellous job of finding patterns in those 10 million bits, but that doesn't mean we're processing it efficiently.

As Eliezer pointed out, an "Efficient" processing would allow us to derive the theory of relativity (or at least Newtonian mechanics) from about 6 frames of an apple falling in a field. That would be a super-efficient use of available information, but not even the best possible use! The eye might be a fantastic piece of kit, but it sure as hell doesn't do that. (or if it does, I need a proper user's manual, cause I haven't figured out how to do it yet!)

Isn't there a declining marginal value to the amount of sensory information available and the amount of processing you do on it?

Information and calculation beyond a certain point may simply becoming "boring."

Fair point, GavinB. If you defined "efficiency" in terms of achieving the most benefit from an eyeball using the fewest computations, then I'm not sure whether a Bayesian superintelligence could approach "efficiency". Maybe the theoretically optimal program to run on the eyeball's input, would itself require exponentially vast brainpower to calculate!

But I would concede a much higher chance that a Bayesian superintelligence could get bored at exactly the right time, than that it could simulate all possible universes.

Do you think it would be a "good" thing if the average intelligence level was bolstered by 40 points? Can you think of any ill side effects from this possibility?

increased existential depression...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com