5 ms·
If you look at the history of human evolution, this doesn't make sense. Evolution was very very slowly increasing human intelligence by, e.g., making our skulls
by MBlume 11y ago
If you look at the history of human evolution, this doesn't make sense. Evolution was very very slowly increasing human intelligence by, e.g., making our skulls bigger. Then we got to the point where we could use language/transmit knowledge between generations/etc. and got up to technological, spacefaring civilization in, evolutionarily speaking, no time whatsoever. This is not a story which suggests that human intelligence is some sort of maximum, or that evolution was running into diminishing returns and so stopped at human intelligence. It suggests that human intelligence is the minimum intelligence necessary to produce the kind of generational transfer that gets you up to technological civilization.
- alextgordon 11y agoIt's not like humans sit around all day thinking. We build tools to do the thinking for us. Humans ourselves are very bad at predicting the weather. So we build supercomputers, and weather models, and now we're a bit better at it. Now the question is: given the same budget, would a super-intelligent AI predict the weather in a substantially different way to humans? I cannot see how, but maybe that is my human stupidity talking.
- Houshalter 11y agoThis is a pretty random domain to pick. We don't know whether it's even possible to predict the weather better than we are. There are limits to that kind of prediction because weather is a chaotic system. However if it is possible to improve weather simulations, and if there are advancements to be made in meteorology, then it's very likely an AI would be able to find them.
- lmm 11y agoHumans are very bad at self improving. Imagine how smart we'd be now if our intelligence had increased at the same rate that computing power increases. Now imagine how fast computing power would've increased if we'd been that smart. Now imagine...