undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTerr_1y ago0 comments

> Cars do not strictly have higher capabilities than horses.

Another way to see it: A horse (or any animal) is a goddamn nanobot-swarm with a functioning hivemind that is literally beyond human science in many important ways. Unlike a horse:

* Your car (nor even half of them) does not possess a manufacturing bay capable of creating additional cars.

* Your car does not have a robust self-repair system.

* Your car does not detect strain its structure and then rebuild stronger.

* Your car does not synthesize its fuel from a wide variety of potential local resources.

* Your car does not defend itself by hacking and counter-hacking attacks other nanobots, or even just by rust.

* Your car does not manufacture and deploy its own replacement lubricants, cooling fluid, or ground-surface grip/padding material.

* Your car is not designed to survive intermittent immersion in water.

In both a feature-list and raw-computation sense, we've discarded huge amounts in order to get a much much smaller set that we care more about.

0 comments

Nevermark1y ago

The car isn’t intelligence.

Not sure why you are implying cars outdid horses intelligence.

Cars are a product of our minds. We have all those self-repair abilities, and we have more intelligence than a horse.

But horses intelligence didn’t let them keep up with what the changing environment, changed by us, needed. So there are less horses.

The rate that horse or human bodies are improving, or our minds, despite human knowledge still advancing, is very slow compared to advances in machines designed specifically for advancement. Initially to accelerate our own advancement.

Now the tech, that was designed to accelerate tech, is taking on a life of its own.

That is how foundational advances happen. They don’t start ahead, but they move ahead because of new advantages.

It is often initially much simpler. But in ways that unlock greater potential.

Machines are certainly much simpler than us. But, much easier to improve and scale.

You recognize the new thing even before it dominates, because in a tiny fraction of the time the old system got to where it is, the new system is already moving much much faster.

If general AI appears before 2047, it will have taken less than 100 years to grow from the first transistor.

People will see it who are older than the first transistor!

Nothing on the planet has ever come close to that speed of progress. From nothing to front runner. By many many many orders of magnitude.

Terr_OP1y ago

Retric referred to "total computing power".

A horse has trillions of cells, and even one of those cells is doing more biochemical day-to-day computation than your car's automatic transmission does electronically or mechanically.

Nevermark1y ago

It feels like maybe you didn’t read what I said, or understand it.

A car was never an example of its own intelligence.

It was an example of our natural human intelligence’s & our growing cultural knowledge’s impact on horses.

How much have horses progressed. Math yet?

More computation doesn’t necessarily mean more intelligence. Horses are smart creatures, I ride one. He is my friend.

But they are not us, not our joint culture, and not any competition for today’s machines in terms of adapting and growing in capabilities.

The fact that machines are far simpler than us or a horse, but advancing faster is much like we were weaker but used our minds better than other apes.

Simpler in the right way is smarter. As many major advances in mathematics have demonstrated.

MichaelZuo1y ago

Your talking as if horses and humans were infinitely far apart, when it’s a lot closer than that, maybe ten million generations. (Assuming the paleontological record is accurate)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse