Algernon's Law 1.1
Evolution at this point would consist primarily of small optimizations that make us less vulnerable to insanity and other inconveniences. Since many of the major cognitive mechanisms are evolutionarily recent, there should be few super-interdependent mechanisms that would make additional evolution difficult. If there are any simple mutations (*) that would grant a huge intelligence boost, they must have side effects that would make them net evolutionary disadvantages. Despite this, there is still hope for the coming Age of Neurohackers, the gestating discipline of cognitive engineering, and the Singularity dependent upon them. Not all evolutionary disadvantages are fatal, intolerable, or unmitigable. Global cognitive degradation may be tolerable in exchange for a powerful local enhancement. If the resulting Specialization is powerful enough to be impossible without diverting nearby cognitive resources - impossible without Specialization - the effect would be to increase the collective
Explore this link on the map →saved by
related reading
- The Algernon Argument · Gwern.netgwern.net
- So You Want To Make Marginal Progress... — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Radimentary | "Everything can be made radically elementary." ~Steven Rudichradimentary.wordpress.com
- Humans are not automatically strategic — LessWronglesswrong.com
- The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Whywaitbutwhy.com
- Humans are not automatically strategic — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Evolution as Backstop for Reinforcement Learning · Gwern.netgwern.net
- Surprised by Brains — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Evolutions Are Stupid (But Work Anyway) — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Evolutions Are Stupid (But Work Anyway) — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Trying to understand my own cognitive edge — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Meditations On Molochslatestarcodexabridged.com