"I live in California, which has the highest poverty rate in the United States, even though it's home to Silicon Valley. I see my rich industry doing nothing to improve the lives of everyday people and indigent people around us." This is trivially false. Over a hundred billionaires have now pledged to donate the majority of their wealth, and the list includes many tech people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuck…
As to the first claim. It seems Mississippi has the highest poverty rate at 21.9%. California is at 16.4%. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty...
Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
101–110 of 607 posts
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#102I feel like this essay is missing a key point around defining intelligence. Machines can be trained to emulate intelligence, but machines are not themselves intelligent. Our neural nets can drive cars, convert speech to text, recognize images, and maybe even carry on a conversation. But there's no light behind the eyes. It's all synthetic. It's an emulation which mimes intelligence through the brute force of observin…
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#103I feel like this essay is missing a key point around defining intelligence. Machines can be trained to emulate intelligence, but machines are not themselves intelligent. Our neural nets can drive cars, convert speech to text, recognize images, and maybe even carry on a conversation. But there's no light behind the eyes. It's all synthetic. It's an emulation which mimes intelligence through the brute force of observin…
We know what intelligence is. And yes, you can actually have dead intelligence, no problem. Intelligence is computing, nothing more.
What we don't know is what is consciousness. You seem to belong to the category of people who believe consciousness is mandatory for intelligence. A lot of us feel differently. Even, there are some who believe consciousness is basically an illusion (I do not share this point of view).
Look at the Chinese Room thought experiment.
Read the novel 'Blindsight' by Peter Watts.
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#104'In particular, there's no physical law that puts a cap on intelligence at the level of human beings.' Maybe not, but there are definitely very physical laws governing everything else, that a superintelligent being's ambitions would run into. A superintelligent being isn't going to be able to build a superliminal reactionless drive if the laws of the universe say it isn't possible. More relevant, a superintelligent b…
All matter is, in principle, a battery. There are no physical laws that prevent near limitless energy storage.
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#105It's amusing how his talk and Stuart Russel's talk [0] -- which end up going opposing ways -- use the "atomic bomb" as an example in fallacious thinking. Stuart's example is about how respected physicists said "impossible to get energy out of atoms" and the very next morning someone published a paper stating how to do it. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBCOMm_ytwM
He and I were on a panel once! It did not go well.
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#106I think brains very probably use quantum effects in ways we might not even be able to study with anything close to today's technology. As a result, individual neurons or groups of neurons can be way more complicated than we are expecting them to be. I'd say we're at least 2 major revolutions away from even coming close to what a chimpanzee's intellect, much less a human's.
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#107"Put another way, this is the premise that the mind arises out of ordinary physics... If you are very religious, you might believe that a brain is not possible without a soul. But for most of us, this is an easy premise to accept." The thing that irks me about this is how it reinforces a common (and in my opinion, false) dichotomy: either you believe the mind is explicable in terms of ordinary physics or you believe…
The roundworm (c. elegans) only has 302 neurons, and about 7,000 synapses, but is capable of social behavior, movement, and reproduction. The entire connectome has been mapped, and we understand how many of these behaviors work without having to resort to additional ontological entities like your "third way". If this complex behavior can be explained using only 302 neurons, I have no doubt that the complexity of huma…
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#108"The second premise is that the brain is an ordinary configuration of matter, albeit an extraordinarily complicated one. If we knew enough, and had the technology, we could exactly copy its structure and emulate its behavior with electronic components, just like we can simulate very basic neural anatomy today." We could have a computer program that perfectly simulates the brain, but has some nasty O(2^N) complexity a…
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#109"I live in California, which has the highest poverty rate in the United States, even though it's home to Silicon Valley. I see my rich industry doing nothing to improve the lives of everyday people and indigent people around us." This is trivially false. Over a hundred billionaires have now pledged to donate the majority of their wealth, and the list includes many tech people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuck…
It's not necessarily false. The quote you took seems to be referring to the homeless in California. The Giving Pledge requires that the money be given to philanthropy, which may improve the lives of others around the world, rather than Californians.
Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
#110'In particular, there's no physical law that puts a cap on intelligence at the level of human beings.' Maybe not, but there are definitely very physical laws governing everything else, that a superintelligent being's ambitions would run into. A superintelligent being isn't going to be able to build a superliminal reactionless drive if the laws of the universe say it isn't possible. More relevant, a superintelligent b…
But I do agree that, if it has complete information, an AI could potentially beat us at anything that requires thinking.