4 ms·

>It's possible that we're already roughly as intelligent as it's possible to be. Now that's more depressing than global annihilation.

mindcrime 11y ago
> Now that's more depressing than global annihilation. Fair point. But I honestly wonder if it's not true, or close to true. I mean, people have been talking about the "end of science" for a while now, even though we know we're not quite literally at "the end". But let's say that we unify relativity / gravity / QM in the next 100 years or so, and identify the exact nature of dark energy / dark matter. Presumably that would represent knowing close to everything about the physical world that its possible to know. And if we can discover that, it does lead you to wonder "what else would more intelligence represent"? Of course, maybe we're WAY more than 100 years away from those things. Or maybe we'll never get there. Or maybe if we do, it doesn't mean anything vis-a-vis the limits of intelligence. I'm just thinking out loud here, this isn't an argument that I've put a lot of time into developing...
- Kutta 11y ago
  > would represent knowing close to everything about the physical world that its possible to know. That's a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us to theoretically predict the evolution of physical systems with an insanely high precision. A precision so great that there wouldn't be any meaningful error simulating macroscopic objects like human brains, given sufficient computing power. But we still have massive holes in our understanding of many things, including human biology or neurology. We don't have enough computing power to precisely simulate, but even if we had that power, it wouldn't necessarily let us understand anything. Elementary particles and humans are on hugely different scales. Observing a simulated human would be easier than observing a human simulated by physics itself, but it wouldn't just magically make everything clear. Having a TOE in physics brings us very little relative benefit compared to the Standard Model, when it comes to understanding biology, materials science, geology, psychology, computer science, etc.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    That's a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us to theoretically predict the evolution of physical systems with an insanely high precision. A precision so great that there wouldn't be any meaningful error simulating macroscopic objects like human brains, given sufficient computing power. Sure, like I said, I'm just thinking out loud here. Obviously TOE in and of itself doesn't automatically translate into full knowledge of everything in practice. But in principle, it would given sufficient computing power, allow us to simulate anything, which I think would yield additional understanding. But here's the thing, and where this all ties back together: sufficient computing resources may not be possible, even in principle, to allow use of that TOE to do $X. But an upper bound on the amount of computing resources should also reflect something of an upper bound on what our hypothetical AI can do as well. Or to put it all slightly differently.. if we had a TOE, we'd have shown, at least, that humans are smart enough to develop a TOE. Which I think at least raises the issue of "how much smarter can a machine be, or what would it mean for a machine to be much smarter than that?" Note to that I'm not necessarily arguing for this position. It's more of a thought experiment or discussion point than something I'm firmly convinced of.
- lmm 11y ago
  Look at how long it's taken us to develop theories or technologies even after we had everything we needed to make them possible. The ancient Greeks had steam engines, but it took us millennia to start using them seriously. The concept of the engineering tolerance makes industry thousands of times more efficient; it could have been invented any time since the 16th century, but it wasn't. The checklist has been known for decades to reduce errors across approximately all disciplines, but it still faces huge barriers to adoption. Evidence-based medicine has been the obviously correct approach since the invention of the scientific method but it's still facing struggles. Even in science, we're still arguing about the interpretation of basic quantum mechanics 100 years after the relevant experiments.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
If you can't be more than you are now (or make something more), you'd rather not exist? That seems rather petulant of you.
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  Lacking in principle the tools to solve the problems the universe gives you may be more depressing than non-existence. Though, I don't think it's actually possible to not exist. Name one person who's experienced nonexistence.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    I'm not sure that "experiencing nonexistence" is theoretically possible. However, I can name lots of people who existed, and now don't. (Even if you're a theist or believe in reincarnation, I'm talking about this current, earthly existence.)
isolate 11y ago
I don't think a lack of intelligence of the IQ test variety is what's holding humanity back. I think it's distraction, greed, lack of empathy (or emotional intelligence), lack of information, and lack of communication. (Maybe there are more things.) Basically, I believe we have all the technology and intelligence we need to make this planet a much better place.
- steve19 11y ago
  We had all the technology and intelligence we needed 2,000 years ago to make the world a better place. Yet our ancestors did not. For many 1000's of years different religions, some on opposite sides of the world from each other, have been saying the same thing. We have the ability to be better people, but all of us squander it with pettiness, jealousy, greed etc.

mindcrime 11y ago

> Now that's more depressing than global annihilation. Fair point. But I honestly wonder if it's not true, or close to true. I mean, people have been talking about the "end of science" for a while now, even though we know we're not quite literally at "the end". But let's say that we unify relativity / gravity / QM in the next 100 years or so, and identify the exact nature of dark energy / dark matter. Presumably that would represent knowing close to everything about the physical world that its possible to know. And if we can discover that, it does lead you to wonder "what else would more intelligence represent"? Of course, maybe we're WAY more than 100 years away from those things. Or maybe we'll never get there. Or maybe if we do, it doesn't mean anything vis-a-vis the limits of intelligence. I'm just thinking out loud here, this isn't an argument that I've put a lot of time into developing...

Kutta 11y ago
> would represent knowing close to everything about the physical world that its possible to know. That's a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us to theoretically predict the evolution of physical systems with an insanely high precision. A precision so great that there wouldn't be any meaningful error simulating macroscopic objects like human brains, given sufficient computing power. But we still have massive holes in our understanding of many things, including human biology or neurology. We don't have enough computing power to precisely simulate, but even if we had that power, it wouldn't necessarily let us understand anything. Elementary particles and humans are on hugely different scales. Observing a simulated human would be easier than observing a human simulated by physics itself, but it wouldn't just magically make everything clear. Having a TOE in physics brings us very little relative benefit compared to the Standard Model, when it comes to understanding biology, materials science, geology, psychology, computer science, etc.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  That's a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us to theoretically predict the evolution of physical systems with an insanely high precision. A precision so great that there wouldn't be any meaningful error simulating macroscopic objects like human brains, given sufficient computing power. Sure, like I said, I'm just thinking out loud here. Obviously TOE in and of itself doesn't automatically translate into full knowledge of everything in practice. But in principle, it would given sufficient computing power, allow us to simulate anything, which I think would yield additional understanding. But here's the thing, and where this all ties back together: sufficient computing resources may not be possible, even in principle, to allow use of that TOE to do $X. But an upper bound on the amount of computing resources should also reflect something of an upper bound on what our hypothetical AI can do as well. Or to put it all slightly differently.. if we had a TOE, we'd have shown, at least, that humans are smart enough to develop a TOE. Which I think at least raises the issue of "how much smarter can a machine be, or what would it mean for a machine to be much smarter than that?" Note to that I'm not necessarily arguing for this position. It's more of a thought experiment or discussion point than something I'm firmly convinced of.
lmm 11y ago
Look at how long it's taken us to develop theories or technologies even after we had everything we needed to make them possible. The ancient Greeks had steam engines, but it took us millennia to start using them seriously. The concept of the engineering tolerance makes industry thousands of times more efficient; it could have been invented any time since the 16th century, but it wasn't. The checklist has been known for decades to reduce errors across approximately all disciplines, but it still faces huge barriers to adoption. Evidence-based medicine has been the obviously correct approach since the invention of the scientific method but it's still facing struggles. Even in science, we're still arguing about the interpretation of basic quantum mechanics 100 years after the relevant experiments.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

If you can't be more than you are now (or make something more), you'd rather not exist? That seems rather petulant of you.

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
Lacking in principle the tools to solve the problems the universe gives you may be more depressing than non-existence. Though, I don't think it's actually possible to not exist. Name one person who's experienced nonexistence.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I'm not sure that "experiencing nonexistence" is theoretically possible. However, I can name lots of people who existed, and now don't. (Even if you're a theist or believe in reincarnation, I'm talking about this current, earthly existence.)

isolate 11y ago

I don't think a lack of intelligence of the IQ test variety is what's holding humanity back. I think it's distraction, greed, lack of empathy (or emotional intelligence), lack of information, and lack of communication. (Maybe there are more things.) Basically, I believe we have all the technology and intelligence we need to make this planet a much better place.

steve19 11y ago
We had all the technology and intelligence we needed 2,000 years ago to make the world a better place. Yet our ancestors did not. For many 1000's of years different religions, some on opposite sides of the world from each other, have been saying the same thing. We have the ability to be better people, but all of us squander it with pettiness, jealousy, greed etc.