Live data from Hacker News

The impossibility of intelligence explosion

medium.com

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#81
post #38
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The whole statement is also wrong. Of course you can increase intelligence by optimizing the process of learning." One of the author's main points is that "intelligence" in the way you mentioned, learning and optimization, is simply one aspect of the human mind. So we could optimize our minds (or an AI program) to beat anyone at the game of Go and play perfectly, but that's all it is optimized to do. It can understa…

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to reading On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf

"A further reason why it is senseless to speak of machines that are larger than people is that humans already possess the property of universal largeness.

By this, we mean that humans are capable of augmenting their bodies or coming together to become indefinitely large, no matter the metric chosen. If a human would like to be taller, they can stand on a chair or climb onto another human’s shoulders. If they would like to be wider, they can begin consuming a high-calorie diet or simply put on a thick sweater (Hensrud, 2004; Figure1)."

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can not simply look in our brains/minds and read our source code, nor easily tweak it to see what would happen without great risks to our lives. A computer could. That is not a given. The neural network type of AI, which is so far the most promising avenue, is about as opaque as a human brain. It is far from obvious that even a superintelligent AI could understand what its own brain does, let alone modify it in…

"That is not a given. The neural network type of AI, which is so far the most promising avenue, is about as opaque as a human brain. It is far from obvious that even a superintelligent AI could understand what its own brain does, let alone modify it in a way that has positive implications for itself." What it could do is experiment. It could rewire the network, add or take away nodes, change functions, etc. This coul…

> What it could do is experiment. It could rewire the network, add or take away nodes, change functions, etc. This could potentially be done and evaluated by it at an incredibly fast rate compared to humans.

"Potentially," but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. There are two ways a brain could be "rewired." It could first be rewired by a local process, that is to say, a group of neurons decide how they are to be connected to each other, without influence from faraway neurons except through the normal propagation of signals through the brain. That's how biological brains do it. Or it could be rewired by a global process, a coordinator that can look at the big picture and make minute changes. That would be your suggestion.

My contention is that the latter method involves a lot of hardware overhead: you basically need a global network connected to each and every neuron which can probe their state in addition to the local wiring that lets neurons communicate with their neighbours. You need space for this bus, so neurons need to be further apart than they otherwise would, which means that signals have to travel further and the brain will think slower.

Nor is "rewire the network, add or take away nodes, change functions, etc." necessarily an effective strategy. First you need to identify what to change, which is like finding a needle inside a haystack, then you need to figure out in what way to change it, which is also difficult, then you need to test whether it had the intended effect, and more importantly, whether there were harmful side-effects. Whether humans can do it or not is not relevant: What is relevant is whether this process is efficient enough to beat the baseline local learning method. It is not clear that it would be.

> Regarding the difficulties of it reading its own source code, even the hypothetical ones you cite are many orders of magnitude smaller than those faced by humans in reading their own, as long as the AI is not itself running on a biological substrate.

What makes you think these are smaller difficulties? On the contrary, if you imagine that the AI is built as a very dense, solid 3D circuit, and you need to read the value of a neuron at the center, you might have a much harder time jamming a probe in there than you would injecting one in a squishy human brain. You would need to build it in such a fashion that it can be probed easily, but that may require making the circuit twice as big and therefore slower. Furthermore, in the presence of local update rules, which is likely to be the case, your "source code" is changing all the time, even as you read it, so your self-knowledge is constantly out of date. There is a synchronization issue here.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#83
Please note: The author (and submitter) is the author of Keras, so his views on AI / DL are not completely unfounded.

The concept of bottlenecks preventing the singularity are a fair point, but I don't believe many of the arguments that are made here. Using humanity as the basis of comparison is not sufficient, since human life expectancy and other requirements for survival are not a factor in artificial superintelligence.

Humans work for perhaps 60 years at improving themselves and their understanding of the world, but must sleep, must eat, must go and stand in line at the DMV, etc. Having a system that can work 24/7 on improving itself for 20 years will match a human lifetime. After a lifetime, humans start over from scratch, with perhaps some learning that can be passed down between generations. AGI can simply clone itself, and begin from exactly where it left off.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#84

Super Intelligence is the information theoretical variant of the perpetuum mobile. Like the article made so aptly clear: No matter the performance of the machine, if its input is not varied, information-rich, complete enough, it will not learn. Mahoney formalized this by looking at the estimated number of bits a human brain processes during its lifetime. The internet currently does not hold enough information to equa…

And, to an extend, I sympathize with the viewpoints of the singularity adherents.

Collective intelligence is a version of Conway's Game of Life, with more complicated rules. It is possible to manipulate the canvas and the rules each cells makes, resulting in the canvas dying (information explosion/implosion). It is possible to make a program that transforms the canvas into a single glider (singularity). Both would obviously be very bad for humans.

When earth faces a physical meteor, we have the science to detect it, track it and predict its future path. But what to do when we face an information meteor? The article states that Shannon's paper was the biggest contribution to information theory, but it seems to me we still have a long way to go on information theory. And we haven't seen the Einsteins and Manhattan projects yet, that physics has seen.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#85

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…

> 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.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#86

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…

>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 the intellectual environment they live in, and that there is a threshold such that IQ over that level is unhelpful. This last claim is allegedly a conclusion drawn from its predecessors, but to me, it looks like the first two claims provide a possible explanation for why there might be an apparent threshold effect, regardless of whether there actually is one. Nothing in this passage convincingly denies the notion that a sufficient number of communicating, above-average intelligent agents could expand the intellectual environment faster than we are currently able to achieve.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#87
post #7

This is a stupid article, and reading it will only make you stupider. First, it is undoubtably true that human brains are better suited to being human than AIs would be. That is irrelevant to the question of whether AIs will be better at the task of creating better technologies. Second, it is absolutely false that improvement is incremental. Consider the game of Go. For a long time, computers sucked at Go. Then we ca…

>Third, linear progress is not the history of technology. The history of technology is exponential progress over and over again on everything from how far a steam ship could travel without refueling to the number of operations per second a CPU can carry out.

Actually the "history of technology" is 1-2 bouts of exponential progress in harvesting the low hanging fruits of a few areas of knowledge, and then long stagnation for millennia (and perhaps, after 1-2 more cycles, forever) as diminishing returns kick in.

The whole last century of medicine, for example, increased life expectancy less than what a couple of basic practices back in the start of that period did -- things like toilets and running water and antibiotics.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#88

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…

> 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.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#89
post #83

Please note: The author (and submitter) is the author of Keras, so his views on AI / DL are not completely unfounded. The concept of bottlenecks preventing the singularity are a fair point, but I don't believe many of the arguments that are made here. Using humanity as the basis of comparison is not sufficient, since human life expectancy and other requirements for survival are not a factor in artificial superintelli…

> Using humanity as the basis of comparison is not sufficient, since human life expectancy and other requirements for survival are not a factor in artificial superintelligence.

Doesn't electrically-driven silicon hardware also have creation and operating costs? Any AI will theoretically need spend electricity convincing its human masters to give it even more electricity. Even if it can use its robot army to build wind farms or whatever, that's time its spending marshaling its robot army and futzing around with aerodynamics instead of contemplating the cosmos.

Its hard drives will expire and need to be replaced. Sure, it could solve that by always having backups of everything it knows, but who is to say that purely lossless backups are actually a more optimal solution to the hardware decay problem than our human lossy strategy?

> AGI can simply clone itself, and begin from exactly where it left off.

Cloning isn't free.

Re: The impossibility of intelligence explosion

#90
post #63

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…

Games have a clear ends goal. How to you measure getting better at ethics?

Maximize human population divided by the time integral of all human suffering (taken from now to the heat death of the universe.)
Post reply on HN