‘Peripatesis’ is a made-up word related to the word ‘peripatetic’, which is an adjective that means ‘roaming’ or ‘meandering’. I’ve always liked to think of knowledge as a huge structure through which a person could walk, sprint, dive, climb, or fly in as straightforward or peripatetic a fashion as they like.
Here’s are my recent wanderings and wonderings:
Bostrom, N., Superintelligence, p. 78-104
I made it through two chapters this week, in which Bostrom addressed the questions of what sort of strategic advantage superintelligence-development projects could expect to have and how this would impact the future.
The question of strategic advantage is closely related to the question of take-off speed, because if we can expect a fast takeoff then it’s likely that the first project which creates an AI capable of recursive self-improvement will also give rise to the first superintelligence. If, on the other hand, the takeoff is slow then there might be many different AIs improving themselves on the path to superintelligence.
As Bostrom believes that a takeoff will probably be fast, he also believes that first superintelligence will probably be the only superintelligence. Any such agent will be capable of utilizing various superpowers, or abilities far beyond those possessed by competing agents, to disproportionately affect the future.
Using conservative estimates for the computational ability required to simulate human minds and how much of the available matter in the universe can be converted to computational substrate, Bostrom makes the case that the future is a truly vast place inhabited by a near-uncountable number of minds.
Given this, a strong argument can be made that the development of the first superintelligence is the most important project a group of humans will ever undertake.
Goldsworthy, A., The Fall of Carthage, p. 214-221
Following his astonishing victory in the battle of Cannae, Hannibal faced the question of whether to march on Rome or to spend some time resting his troops and planning his next move.
Hannibal chose the latter, giving rise to one of the great ‘what-if’s’ of world history. It is far from clear that Rome would’ve been able to repel a full assault on the city itself, and equally unclear that Hannibal could’ve taken Rome.
In any case Rome ignored the delegation Hannibal sent to negotiate, choosing instead to begin the process of rebuilding their army.
For his part, Hannibal gained many new allies in Southern Italy, and with them a means of drawing supplies to feed his army, meaning he no longer needed to constantly be on the move.
From this point on it was to be a markedly different war between these two titanic enemies.
Luce, R., Raiffa, H., Games and Decisions, p. 12-38
As the concept of utility is essential in gaining an understanding of game theory, the entirety of Chapter 2 is devoted to it.
The following conceptual distinctions are made: an individual can be thought of as any entity or entities with a unitary goal, and a group is one comprised of members with competing goals. Decisions can be made under conditions of certainty, risk, or uncertainty.
A situation is certain when each action leads invariably to a known outcome, risky when each action leads to a set of possible outcomes which have known probabilities, and uncertain when it isn’t clear what the outcome of an action will be.
The authors then turn to analyzing decision making under certainty and under risk before laying out a number of axioms central to game theory.