3 ms·

I'm not sure why you think humans don't scale. Do you think that the research done by the Manhattan Project was no more impressive than research conducted by a

I'm not sure why you think humans don't scale. Do you think that the research done by the Manhattan Project was no more impressive than research conducted by a single individual? Or that a single individual is going to have as much success gaining political power as a political party? Now as I said, "adding another person doesn't necessarily make things go faster." It can, but not always. But what evidence do we have that a human level AI would be able to scale easily? That seems to be a pretty huge assumption that gets glossed over.

rl3 11y ago
>But what evidence do we have that a human level AI would be able to scale easily? The fact it would probably be software, executing on a digital platform. These things typically lend themselves to optimization and scaling. Seems to me that the chance we'll have just enough computing power to run human-level AI—without sufficient resources to go beyond that—is a small one. It is far more likely that we will either have too little, or more than ample computing power available. What evidence do you have that human-level AI won't scale easily? The best argument I can think of in your favor would be prohibitive computational complexity requirements, but the aforementioned dynamic still applies—it's unlikely that we'd have only just enough computing power to achieve human-level and not go beyond that.
- Chathamization 11y ago
  We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. As I wrote in another comment, the K computer was able to simulate a seconds worth of brain activity. It doesn't seem to have scaled easily. I don't have experience with supercomputers, but I have a feeling that things are a bit more complicated than "just network it together with another supercomputer, and then everything will be twice as fast." And that's just talking about a raw increase in computing power. We don't have any idea whether a human level intelligence program would even be able to put increased processing power to good use (and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections).
  - rl3 11y ago
    >We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. Simulating the brain isn't necessarily the path to human-level AGI though. Simulating biology in digital form tends to be inefficient. Modern machine learning scales easily, or at least relatively easy. >(and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections) Perhaps a constraint of our brain's cognitive architecture and not intrinsic to cognition itself. Still, interesting point.

rl3 11y ago

>But what evidence do we have that a human level AI would be able to scale easily? The fact it would probably be software, executing on a digital platform. These things typically lend themselves to optimization and scaling. Seems to me that the chance we'll have just enough computing power to run human-level AI—without sufficient resources to go beyond that—is a small one. It is far more likely that we will either have too little, or more than ample computing power available. What evidence do you have that human-level AI won't scale easily? The best argument I can think of in your favor would be prohibitive computational complexity requirements, but the aforementioned dynamic still applies—it's unlikely that we'd have only just enough computing power to achieve human-level and not go beyond that.

Chathamization 11y ago
We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. As I wrote in another comment, the K computer was able to simulate a seconds worth of brain activity. It doesn't seem to have scaled easily. I don't have experience with supercomputers, but I have a feeling that things are a bit more complicated than "just network it together with another supercomputer, and then everything will be twice as fast." And that's just talking about a raw increase in computing power. We don't have any idea whether a human level intelligence program would even be able to put increased processing power to good use (and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections).
- rl3 11y ago
  >We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. Simulating the brain isn't necessarily the path to human-level AGI though. Simulating biology in digital form tends to be inefficient. Modern machine learning scales easily, or at least relatively easy. >(and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections) Perhaps a constraint of our brain's cognitive architecture and not intrinsic to cognition itself. Still, interesting point.