Chalmers’ formalization of Good’s intelligence explosion argument. Good’s 1965 paper was important, but it presented no systematic argument; only hand-waving. Chalmers breaks down Good’s argument into parts and examines the plausibility of each part in turn, considers the plausibility of various defeaters and possible paths, and makes a more organized and compelling case for Good’s intelligence explosion than anybody at SIAI has.
I thought Chalmers was a newbie to all this—and showed it quite a bit. However, a definite step forward from zombies. Next, see if Penrose or Searle can be recruited.
I thought Chalmers was a newbie to all this—and showed it quite a bit. However, a definite step forward from zombies. Next, see if Penrose or Searle can be recruited.