111–120 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maximize human population divided by the time integral of all human suffering (taken from now to the heat death of the universe.)
Congratulations, your AI wants to convert all matter in the universe into lobotomized humans.
Also, we don't need an AI that's ethically perfect, just equal or better to an average human.
This article is typical of many that claim proven limits on the feasibility (or, in this case, the capabilities) of generalized artificial intelligence, in that it structures the argument in a way designed to avoid discussion of the issue. It starts by claiming that there is no such thing as general intelligence. What specialized intelligence, then, is human intelligence? It's specialized for "being human". The autho…
>> A lot of column-inches are expended on repeatedly restating that animal intelligences have co-evolved with their sensorimotor systems, which is a contingent fact of history, not a fundamental necessity for intelligence (as far as we know; How do we know that? We only know of intelligences that co-evolved with their sensoriotor etc, so how do we know that's not the only way to do it?
But the thing that keeps getting at me is that the no-explosion arguments I've seen are universally terrible (this article, for example), and pro-explosion arguments, though far from universally so, are sometimes strong.
At some point the conclusion is inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point he is trying to make is that there are boundaries to intelligence. I think of it this way - no matter how smart an AI is, it still would take 4.3 years to reach Alpha Centauri going at the speed of light . An AI still needs to run experiments, collect evidence, conjure hypothesis, reach consensus, etc.. Is this really that far more efficient than what humans do today?
But we, humans, aren't going at anything like the speed of light. What if we tweaked our DNA to produce human beings with the working memory capacity of 50 items instead of the normal 7-ish [1]? One such researcher would be able to work faster, on more problems at once, and to consider more evidence and facts. The next bottleneck for that person, of course, would be the input/output capacity (reading, writing, typing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen lots of essays (not this one) claim that morality will "inherently" emerge from intelligence, which I think is absurd. Shit, my moral views aren't an 'inherent' product of anything except my evolution-shaped brain that feels empathy. You're evolution-shaped brain is what an AI will become too. It won't start out super-human smart; it will evolve to an equal level. Then keep going. Morals are basically low…
...huh? AI will reach parity with humans before it exceeds them, agreed. But intelligence parity is not the same as "matching my evolution-shaped brain". Feeling empathy for other humans is not a requirement for intelligence; I routinely make supposedly-irrational choices to help humans in non-reciprocal settings because I feel empathy. There's no reason to think an AI that can write code as well as me will feel the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose one has to know calculus and topology to navigate Earth. Worth a smattering of quantum physics and wave physics. Oh wait. Those do not fall under such narrow definition of intelligence.
How many insects or birds know "calculus and topology"? You're straining so much here, to be both narrow and broad, that you contradict yourself.
No reason why a GAI wouldn't have a similar instinct or capabilities.
Author also misposes no free lunch theorem. It pertains to algorithms not computational ability, and we're entirely not sure if true intelligence is an immutable algorithm. (Human is not, because of genetics.) There is no real equivalent theorem for self modifying algorithms, (or changing objective functions) and if there were, it will run afoul of halting problem.
Three theorem also had at least one known hole where it does not apply to coevolutionary algorithms. (Such as part of Alpha Go to go for an easy example.)
While environment puts on a hard limit, the limit is extremely high, on the order of 2^300. The optimising does not have to go for the simplest algorithm to solve the problem. And we do not know enough about informational capacity of matter in quantum states to be honest.
This article is typical of many that claim proven limits on the feasibility (or, in this case, the capabilities) of generalized artificial intelligence, in that it structures the argument in a way designed to avoid discussion of the issue. It starts by claiming that there is no such thing as general intelligence. What specialized intelligence, then, is human intelligence? It's specialized for "being human". The autho…
"Specialized at being human" - this is a deep intuition. We are reinforcement learning agents that are pre-programed with a certain number of reward responses. We learn from rewards to keep ourselves alive, to find food, company and make babies. It's all a self reinforcing loop, where intelligence has the role of keeping the body alive, and the body has the role of expressing that intelligence. We're really specialized in keeping human bodies alive and making more human bodies, in our present environment.
The author puts a hard limit on intelligence because intelligence is limited by the complexity of the problems it needs to solve (assuming it has sufficient abilities). So the environment is the bottleneck. In that case, an AGI would be like an intelligent human, a little bit better than the rest, not millions of times better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It starts by claiming that there is no such thing as general intelligence. What specialized intelligence, then, is human intelligence? I think there are two usages of the term 'general intelligence' floating around: (1) the ability that humans possess (but which animals don't) to create universal theories, (2) the measure of one human's general cognitive ability or potential (in all fields) relative to another human…
The author seems to want it both ways: he is skeptical that IQ measures intelligence (and certainly not general intelligence, the existence of which he denies), but he uses it in his arguments. As I see it, the author's IQ argument has three claims: that people with exceptional IQ do not generally achieve commensurately that much better than the rest of us, that this is because they are constrained by the state of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What specialized intelligence, then, is human intelligence? I think the author just means "the skills needed to pilot a human body on Earth in a normal human social environment". I see no tautology, and the preceding sentence about octopuses makes the author's meaning here pretty clear.
I suppose one has to know calculus and topology to navigate Earth. Worth a smattering of quantum physics and wave physics. Oh wait. Those do not fall under such narrow definition of intelligence.
I'm not sure that I ever read a piece written with so much certainty and arrogance on a field that is completely unexplored. Just as an example: "The basic premise of intelligence explosion — that a “seed AI” will arise, with greater-than-human problem solving ability, leading to a sudden, recursive, runaway intelligence improvement loop — is false." From the little that we know as of today I call bullshit. Even Alph…
The fact that there is no "universal environment" means there can be no general intelligence. There can be just environment specific intelligences (situated intelligence, as the author said). The concept of AGI is just a reification of narrow AI - an illusion, there is no such thing.