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

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#41

Post by bluGill »

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.

A human with experience can do without AI the job a lot faster than someone without can do it with. The expert HVAC tech can get the wrench of the fitting and have the job done faster than the novice. The novice will take longer to follow directions to get the right wrench; then they have to figure out how to get it on - something the expert does automatically isn't easy; then turn it the right direction... The expert also knows the correct "feel" so they won't over tighten, while still having less leaks to fix (both will check, but the expert will find less)

If I'm in my remote cabin I'm still faster than calling a tech, but in my city I can hire someone to do this who is faster. (though perhaps not cheaper)

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#42

Post by drivebyhooting »

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…

For the present, human bodies are far more capable than robotic ones.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#43

Post by _puk »

mister_mort wrote: post #37
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.

And if AI wrote a book about these hypnotic powers, then it would be incredibly convoluted, long, and yet worn as a badge of pride to have survived it.

Thinking about it, much of the output I'm seeing nowadays looks like a chapter out of infinite jest.

Maybe that's unfair on infinite jest.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#44

Post by ball_of_lint »

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…

Does human nature explain the difference in regulation and therefore progress between US and China Pharma?

I mean to say: Yes it's certainly a factor, but we're also leaving fences in our own way.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#45

Post by bluGill »

RandomLensman wrote: post #28
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/…

Just wanting to cure cancer doesn't mean it would be accomplished - vote or not.

I could build a house. With zero experience you can find a job in house building as they will pay you to learn on the job (depending on the economy you might or might not be able to find such a job today, in good years they will hire anyone who isn't disabled - but there are bad years). Many people who have never had a construction job build their own house (only a tiny %, but that is still a lot of people)

I suppose I could work on a cancer cure. However since I don't have a background in biology I would have to pay for several years of school to learn the required skills. Those classes are hard and there is no guarantee I will pass (I have an engineering degree, so my odds of passing should be above average).

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#46

Post by fellowniusmonk »

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…

Anything digital basically has the chaos fuzzed out by its binary nature.

The analog gets all the real entropy.

Humans are cool because our distribution is exploring the future curve of what is possible in a hostile universe and to do that successfully over time we have to have the humility to always have someone unsure of even our most basic facts.

Sucks for most of those edge distribution humans but good for the species.

But this is why our criteria of reasonable is aligned with the center of distribution and why we have colloquial statements like "if you design for everyone you design for no one".

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#47

Post by adverbly »

> new drugs approved per dollar of R&D has fallen for decades, even as our scientific tools have grown vastly more powerful, the exact opposite of what the existence of more raw capability would predict

Can we please stop using X per dollar as a metric over long periods of time?

Inflation causes exponential price increases, so almost everything would be expected to have its "per dollar" yield decrease over time...

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#48

Post by bsenftner »

Well, let me just throw in it is our communication skills, or lack of them, that is our main bottleneck. That goes for pretty much everything humans do, and everything we fail trying to do: it is the quality of those engaged and their communications that is the critical aspect determining success or failure.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#49

Post by drivebyhooting »

bluGill wrote: post #41
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.

A human with experience can do without AI the job a lot faster than someone without can do it with. The expert HVAC tech can get the wrench of the fitting and have the job done faster than the novice. The novice will take longer to follow directions to get the right wrench; then they have to figure out how to get it on - something the expert does automatically isn't easy; then turn it the right direction... The exper…

In my city I call a handyman to fix my dryer and guess what? He uses chatGPT to help him through the issue. $350

Beyond a basic amount of manual dexterity and familiarity with mechanical things, AI can absolutely help guide an untrained person through the job.

How about medical research? Endless hours of pipetting. Does it really take a phd? It takes someone with conscientiousness and care. Both things an AI overlord would help with.

Re: Intelligence Is Not the Main Bottleneck

#50

Post by zone411 »

mister_mort wrote: post #37
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.

A complete mischaracterization, as usual for HN lately when discussing AI or LessWrong. Obviously, even average levels of persuasion are enough to convince some people. And nobody is air-gapping AI.
Post reply on HN