pitspotter
This is contradicted by Richard Hamming in his lecture on creativity. He points out a famous, tranquil, well-equipped environment, viz. the Institute for Advanced Study, where only very few breakthroughs have been made:
https://worldofwork.io/2019/07/cialdinis-6-principles-of-per...
It's a bad idea to finger on the first play or the first day because there's a risk of premature optimisation. It doesn't take much analysis apart from one or two specific problems. The fingerings I end up with usually vary somewhat from the editor's.
But the OP is correct, once you've got a fingering, you have to stick to it, even if it's suboptimal in places. It's your fingering, and if you change something after 200 repetitions there's a danger of slipping back into the old pattern and stumbling.
But there are clear criteria: there are the seven categories of cell damage proposed by Aubrey de Grey over a decade ago:
https://lostempireherbs.com/anti-aging-7-types-cell-damage/
If treatments are developed to tackle these types of damage then I suspect they will rapidly supersede conventional geriatric care in terms of cost and convenience, a significant side-effect being that the patient subsequently fails to die of natural causes.
> [...] We’ve barely scratched the surface of optics and camera lens
A real genius certainly, but, I'm always doing this; bad choice of metaphor here!
>The idea though that we'd make a solo intelligence is bizarre.
Yes, even our outlier general intelligences (i.e. creative geniuses) got that way because they somehow reproduced more of the surrounding culture inside their heads than everyone else did. It's misleading to think of that as solo brilliance.
>They would communicate with each other at speeds so fast that communication with them would be almost impossible.
In addition to pausing, we could also slow the simulation down for periods of communication. But given how long it took humans to evolve from single-celled organisms, and later to develop hand axes, etc, we may find that our potential AGI culture also starts off very very slowly.
>And that with just 20 Watt?
It is amazing; however there's a school of thought that just as we evolved brains in order to reduce physical effort generally this included minimising power consumption by the brain itself. Intelligence was then a by-product of a more glucose-efficient brain!
Yet it's good people who assure the conditions under which invention is even possible.
Importantly, we use many different reference frames to model, say, a coffee cup (Jeff Hawkins' favourite example!) and they vote between themselves in order to produce a coherent/unitary experience. Hence 'Thousand Brains'.
I don't know. However I think I know the reason it's permitted to exist: because it makes its victims more resilient. The troll knows this at some level so his conscience is relatively untroubled.
I'm learning Rachmaninoff's Prelude in G minor, probably the hardest piece for me to date. I'm not timing the process but this must have been going on for six months by now. Practice occurs only when I feel like it, as I walk past the keyboard. Sometimes less than 5 minutes per day. Rarely more than 15 minutes.
But it's getting there! If you added it all up, it would be a tremendous amount of work. Doing it to a schedule, or even just filling out a timesheet, would make it too grindy for me to bother with.
So I think When it comes to learning, it's really motivation that is paramount. Not getting bored is a superpower. It's the ability to 'embrace grind' by discovering what's interesting about it.
Also consider that since the industrial revolution child mortality in the West has declined tremendously (thankfully), so it's possible that our genomes have accumulated mutations presently unknown which will need to be deleted at some point. Better done via gene-editing tech than via the cruelties of natural selection or eugenics.
Moreover, identifying harmful mutations can't tell you how to build superhumans. So I think the similarity is only superficial.
Feynman would be another example like Von Neumann. Off-the-charts intelligence and admired for his intelligence, his honesty and sense of adventure. But limited creative output due apparently to his pursuit of sex and intrigue.
Then there would have been many more theorems bearing his name:
However I'm not saying people should believe in an afterlife. Rather I'm reflecting that not wanting there to be an afterlife could conceivably manifest as the flat belief that consciousness does not persist after death. And if I am the stupendous Creator running a simulation game for developing AGIs then, when it comes to selecting candidates for the next phase, the criterion of their wanting to persist might be the decisive one.
The libertarian argument used to support censorship is that a private group or business is free to do what it wants. However this misses the increasingly apparent fact that an insufficiently politically correct business in this environment is quickly targeted and perhaps even 'cancelled'.
So we have a systemic problem. Private entities are not truly free just as the de facto government is not truly accountable.
If you're concerned about carbon dioxide you can either refresh the air periodically or you can create a small gap in the duvet to allow some exchange of air with the surrounding room (whilst keeping the humidity relatively high).