Live data from Hacker News

Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

idlewords.com

101–110 of 607 posts

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#101
post #76

"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...

"Thank God for Mississippi"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_for_Mississippi

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#102
post #80

I 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…

A lot of our greatest inventions or discoveries were "mistakes".

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#103
post #80

I 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…

You're really looking at the dichotomy intelligence / consciousness here, actually.

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
post #67

'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.

There are if you want to have a functioning computer in the middle of all that energy. There are laws governing heat dispersal (speed of light in only 3 dimensions) and laws governing the collapse of information processing structures into black holes.

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#105
post #70

It'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.

And you're holding out on us with the story because...

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#106

I 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.

Computers use quantum effects. That's how transistors function.

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#107
post #54
post #27

"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…

Are you sure? My understanding is that this connectome has been rather unfruitful in explaining its behavior.

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…

I don't buy the AI quasi-religious stuff. But your argument here is flawed. If protein folding can do the process in constant time, we may be able to find another process (but electronic rather than wet chem) that can also do it in constant time.

Re: Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

#109
post #79

"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.

That interpretation may make it true, but it would also seem to make it irrelevant. Unless Californians somehow have greater moral significance than people elsewhere.

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…

I think a lot of people forget one thing: intelligence is basically as good as the info you're putting into it. So even if you have a tremendous AI, it can only be as smart as the info it can access. It could only have god-like powers in realms from which it could extract some information. It's still very much subject to being blinded by ignorance (in the most literal sense of the word).

But I do agree that, if it has complete information, an AI could potentially beat us at anything that requires thinking.

Post reply on HN