3 ms·

>Replicating intelligences might be like black boxes which we don't understand but can generate, or grow, if you will, from simpler primitives. We might get luc

>Replicating intelligences might be like black boxes which we don't understand but can generate, or grow, if you will, from simpler primitives. We might get lucky and discover the means to generate intelligences without understanding them. On that premise, the risk of accidentally discovering the right bit-string that morphs into a all powerful evil AI seems to be minuscule. Since at least human intelligence consists of multiple dimensions/factors and only some combinations thereof can be described as "intelligent", given a certain environment. Accidentally discovering something "thinkable": maybe, brute forcing the right combination for human-surpassing intelligence? Most likely not.

platz 11y ago
You make it sound like strong AI will be programmed with ALGOL 68 control structures and loops, hand-coded (i.e. the right bit-string). If that is your conception in I agree with you. However this sounds much too like the "expert systems" of the eighties. Biology doesn't have any need for "the right bit-string" (modulo DNA, different purpose) to make intelligence work, and one shouldn't have such an expectation of an emergent strong AI, either. Instead of "the right bit-string", think more "the right model"
- nairboon 11y ago
  I didn't particularly think of ALGOL with the bit-string, but more of the parameter space of the mentioned black-box model. Which I'd assume, coding for a black-box, is quite huge, with lots of local maxima that could appear 'intelligent'. I was referring to discovering the global maxima in that parameter space more or less by chance, as highly unlikely. I agree with the problem being more one of finding the 'right model', as I'd hope that this will reduce the parameter space greatly. That's why I agree with gggp's post that we'd need to know more about human intelligence, thus also human motivation.
  - platz 11y ago
    "Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Rutherford & "It's like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds," - Albert Einstein - The Pittsburgh Press - Dec 28, 1934 - On the idea that man might some day utilize the atom's energy. Einstein was essentially making the same "parameter space" argument you're making. There will have to be more true breakthroughs to get to AI, yes; I do agree though that it will take a "long" time, however before this happens.

platz 11y ago

You make it sound like strong AI will be programmed with ALGOL 68 control structures and loops, hand-coded (i.e. the right bit-string). If that is your conception in I agree with you. However this sounds much too like the "expert systems" of the eighties. Biology doesn't have any need for "the right bit-string" (modulo DNA, different purpose) to make intelligence work, and one shouldn't have such an expectation of an emergent strong AI, either. Instead of "the right bit-string", think more "the right model"

nairboon 11y ago
I didn't particularly think of ALGOL with the bit-string, but more of the parameter space of the mentioned black-box model. Which I'd assume, coding for a black-box, is quite huge, with lots of local maxima that could appear 'intelligent'. I was referring to discovering the global maxima in that parameter space more or less by chance, as highly unlikely. I agree with the problem being more one of finding the 'right model', as I'd hope that this will reduce the parameter space greatly. That's why I agree with gggp's post that we'd need to know more about human intelligence, thus also human motivation.
- platz 11y ago
  "Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Rutherford & "It's like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds," - Albert Einstein - The Pittsburgh Press - Dec 28, 1934 - On the idea that man might some day utilize the atom's energy. Einstein was essentially making the same "parameter space" argument you're making. There will have to be more true breakthroughs to get to AI, yes; I do agree though that it will take a "long" time, however before this happens.