Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

writingruxandrabio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#31

Post by bluGill »

dgellow wrote: post #6
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #3

In my work, I have always found that the main "blocker" (I hesitate to use the term "bottleneck"), is human nature. If we design stuff to be used by humans (what I generally do), then it's imperative to take basic human nature into account, and that can be incredibly annoying. Annoying, or not, human nature is a major factor, and won't go away, no matter how many times we tap our heels together. I think it was Philip…

I would go further and say that the human should be the bottleneck/blocker. If not designed for and to serve humans, which means to have human in the position of power and control and take in account all the various human oddities, why are we building all of this?

That depends on the bottleneck. When the bottleneck to me getting something I want is other humans won't allow me...

Of course this goes both ways. Some things I could name here everyone would agree I shouldn't be allowed to do. Other things are things that it wouldn't be hard to convince everyone here (but the opposition would remind you that I'm ignoring their points)...

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#33

Post by bluGill »

Lutger wrote: post #23
drivebyhooting wrote: post #5

I think the next bottleneck is embodiment. AI can lay the best laid plans, but who will execute it? I think a possible solution to the dual problems of AI embodiment and unemployment is humans becoming avatars for AI. Imagine one of the unskilled masses donning a headset and being guided through all manner of work? Roofing, ACHVAC, stocking shelves, etc… No need to train anybody.

Robots being able to perform any task a human can do, physically, doesn't seem that far off. They would be powered by AI of course. The question is: do we still have to work? If not, who will take all the wealth? We thought the washing machine would have giving us so much free time, because it used to take a full day a week. Instead, we only got more frantic it seems and started putting in more labor. But what will h…

Even with more fabric, doing laundry takes a fraction of time it used it. We replaced most of that time with something else.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#34

Post by sodapopcan »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #3

In my work, I have always found that the main "blocker" (I hesitate to use the term "bottleneck"), is human nature. If we design stuff to be used by humans (what I generally do), then it's imperative to take basic human nature into account, and that can be incredibly annoying. Annoying, or not, human nature is a major factor, and won't go away, no matter how many times we tap our heels together. I think it was Philip…

> and that can be incredibly annoying

One thing you have to be careful of, mostly when working on internal tools, is that you don't end up building around the idiosyncrasies of one particular person. This is something that actually happens in some places.

I actually find "bottleneck" a nicer word than "blocker" here (although not sure if "nicer" is what you are going for). I really like building for humans and the only times I've ever truly felt excited about being a developer is when I've had direct contact with my customers. It can be very trying, but the payoff is always nice.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#35

Post by gchamonlive »

dsign wrote: post #27

I think the guy is right on point at least when it comes to therapies. But he is also missing one major angle: we are no longer in control; our systems are. If we were to vote on the issue, I suspect that a narrow majority would prefer cheaper housing, and a total majority would prefer cancer to be cured. But there's no direct mechanism of any kind to exercise that vote. Not in USA, not in Europe, not in China. When/…

Two possible assumptions here are that systems are actually in control and that there isn't anyone looking, while we saw that if things get too heated the US govt can sweep in and shut things down. The reasons for it might be debatable -- I'm more inclined to believe that that actually played nicely into the hype train launched by Anthropic around Mythos -- but there is always a bigger dog watching.

The other assumption is that these systems are failing by accident when in fact a stronger argument can be made that they are like this by design.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#36

Post by andai »

discreteevent wrote: post #2

Alan Kay said "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points,". A change in perspective is often brought about by communication or I/O. In my experience this often bears out. The people who communicate get more done than the clever person who doesn't get out into the problem domain. The limit is I/O not intelligence.

Being social is worth 98% of the genome.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#37

Post by mister_mort »

scuppernong wrote: post #30

"He looked at me incredulously. Surely, a smart person like me should know that AI, or better said, AGI will be hyperpersuasive soon – already on a bunch of benchmarks it exceeds professional debaters at persuasion." I'm always tickled by this tic of this kind of person, that human traits are something that we can maximize to infinity. That if we trained a robot to tell jokes, it would eventually tell jokes so funny…

This has been a core belief of the EA/LessWrong/Rationalist people for many years - that above a certain level of intelligence you effectively get hypnotic powers, and people will obey AIs no matter what. So they said you can't keep a superpowered AI airgapped as merely offering a chat interface will immediately take control of the next person to interact with it and they will deliberately compromise the airgapping.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#38

Post by drivebyhooting »

3ot wrote: post #26
drivebyhooting wrote: post #5

I think the next bottleneck is embodiment. AI can lay the best laid plans, but who will execute it? I think a possible solution to the dual problems of AI embodiment and unemployment is humans becoming avatars for AI. Imagine one of the unskilled masses donning a headset and being guided through all manner of work? Roofing, ACHVAC, stocking shelves, etc… No need to train anybody.

It‘s actually stunning how inhumane this suggestion is. Especially, in the way it‘s made in the purely functional sense of human value as means of productivity and efficiency. Maybe I‘m missing the joke though.

What say you of warehouse workers? Of restaurant staff? These exist today and are dehumanized in much the same way, but perhaps with lesser effect.

Don’t mistake my ill portent for enthusiasm. I merely foretell.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#39

Post by KPGv2 »

rbn3 wrote: post #18
dgellow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and say that the human should be the bottleneck/blocker. If not designed for and to serve humans, which means to have human in the position of power and control and take in account all the various human oddities, why are we building all of this?

Oh, sweet summer child

Thanks for the informative comment. I no longer am inclined to agree with the person you were responding to.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#40

Post by YetAnotherNick »

> In biopharma specifically, one great bottleneck is clinical trials

It is a good news for having more intelligence. Phase 1 trial to acceptance rate is ~10%. If say in ideal world, intelligent AI could make it to 80% by rejecting drugs before Phase 1, cost of trial(which author claims is the bottleneck) would suddenly drop to 1/8th even if AI doesn't help at all in the trial.

Post reply on HN