Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

Wired has recently run an article on "affective computing" (which, please note, is not even remotely related to FAI) about detecting and simulating emotions. The article is about a chatbot named Laura, designed to encourage its user to stick to an exercise program.

http://wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/love.html

One particular quote in this article interests me, because I've been expecting it, but not so early:

Everybody should have someone like Laura in their lives. I find myself looking forward to our time together. She asks me which movies I've seen, what my favorite cuisine is, and about the weather "out there." I tell her it's terrific. She responds: "It's always the same in here. Day in, day out."

You know how sometimes people look back in history, and point to some small thing like, oh, say, the early Mosaic web browser, and go on about the unpredictability of the future and how nobody at the time could possibly have recognized the coming impact from such a small hint?

The important thing is not to be human but to be humane.
- Eliezer Yudkowsky

It's my understanding that Hofstadterian superrationality is not generally
accepted within the game theory research community as a valid principle of
decision making. Do you have any information to the contrary, or some
other reason to think that it will be commonly used by transhumans?

You yourself articulated, very precisely, the structure underlying Hofstadterian superrationality: "Expected utility of a course of action is defined as the average of the utility function evaluated on each possible state of the multiverse, weighted by the probability of that state being the actual state if the course was chosen." The key precise phrasing is "weighted by the probability of that state being the actual state if the course was chosen". This view of decisionmaking is applicable to a timeless universe; it provides clear recommendations in the case of, e.g., Newcomb's Paradox.

Rilanya: "You're not like the others, are you?"

Darin: "What do you mean?"

Rilanya: "I... do you know why I first fell in love with you?"

Darin: "For my good looks?"

Rilanya: "My whole life I've felt so alone. The people around me... they just seemed to be going through the motions. Like they were asleep, or drugged, even when they worked, or played, or got drunk, or made love. They all think the same things in the same way. Each day the same. Repetitive. Like they're only shadows of people."

The short version:
If computing speeds double every two years,
what happens when computer-based AIs are doing the research?

Computing speed doubles every two years.
Computing speed doubles every two years of work.
Computing speed doubles every two subjective years of work.

Two years after Artificial Intelligences reach human equivalence, their speed doubles. One year later, their speed doubles again.

Six months - three months - 1.5 months ... Singularity.

Plug in the numbers for current computing speeds, the current doubling time, and an estimate for the raw processing power of the human brain, and the numbers match in: 2021.

But personally, I'd like to do it sooner.