3 ms·

I think most people didn't really understand the meaning of your comment. They seem to all equate intelligence and processing speed. I think it's legitimately

I think most people didn't really understand the meaning of your comment. They seem to all equate intelligence and processing speed. I think it's legitimately an interesting question. As in, it could be something like Turing completeness. All Turing complete languages are capable of computing the same things, some are just faster. Maybe there's nothing beyond our level of understanding, just a more accelerated and accurate version of it. An AI will think on the same level as us, just faster. In that case, in that hypothetical, an AI 100x faster than a person is not much better than 100 people. It won't forget things (that's an assumption, actually), it's neuron firing or equivalent would be faster, but maybe it won't really be capable of anything fundamentally different than people. This is not the same as the difference between chimps and humans. We are fundamentally on another level. A chimp, or even a million chimps, can never accomplish what a person can. They will not discover abstract math, write a book, speak a language. Mind you, I suspect this is not the case. I suspect that a super intelligent AI will be able to think of things we can never hope to accomplish. But it is an interesting question that I think is worth thinking about, rather than inanely down voting the idea.

mindcrime 11y ago
As in, it could be something like Turing completeness. All Turing complete languages are capable of computing the same things, some are just faster. Maybe there's nothing beyond our level of understanding, just a more accelerated and accurate version of it. An AI will think on the same level as us, just faster. In that case, in that hypothetical, an AI 100x faster than a person is not much better than 100 people. It won't forget things (that's an assumption, actually), it's neuron firing or equivalent would be faster, but maybe it won't really be capable of anything fundamentally different than people. Yeah, that's another really good way of putting it. That's probably closer to what I meant, than what I said above.
derefr 11y ago
> They seem to all equate intelligence and processing speed. It's helpful to remind people that every human brain that exists runs at the same processing speed†, yet we have greatly varying intelligence between us. (Also, IQ is an index, but people confuse it for a linear measure; human geniuses may be doing things that require many times the "intelligence" of the average person.) † Okay, I lied: there are some people whose neurons have abnormal firing rates; the visible result is Parkinsonism.
rayalez 11y ago
Even if that is the case, a person with human-level intelligence, but with unlimited memory, ability to visualize, internet connection, no need to sleep, and thinking 100 times faster than a normal person would quickly become pretty much God to us.
- shpx 11y ago
  I agree, I suspect at this time there's more room for progress to be made by augmenting human intellect than AI. Think about how long it takes you to imagine a program vs actually coding it, or imagining an object you want to create and actually building it, there are at least two or three orders of magnitude for improvement over the keyboard.
majika 11y ago
If we accept: - that there's only one class of "humanic" intelligence; - that we can approximately represent instances in this class of intelligence as vectors of {memory, learning speed, computation speed, communication speed}; - that any AI that could be created is merely a vector in this n-dimensional intelligence space, lacking any extra-intelligent qualities; - that productivity and achievement increases exponentially the more intelligent being you devote to a problem, but logarithmically for more beings you devote (e.g. a being with intelligence vector {10,10,10,10} might be as productive as 10000 {1,1,1,1} beings); then this doesn't exclude the possibility of us creating an AI with an intelligence vector twice an average human's intelligence vector, which can suggest improvements to its algorithms and datacenter and chip designs to become 10x as intelligent as a human, and from there it could quickly determine new algorithms, and eventually it's considering philosophy (and what to do about these humans). The point is: viewing intelligence the way you suggest doesn't help us on what to do about "super" artificial intelligence.

mindcrime 11y ago

As in, it could be something like Turing completeness. All Turing complete languages are capable of computing the same things, some are just faster. Maybe there's nothing beyond our level of understanding, just a more accelerated and accurate version of it. An AI will think on the same level as us, just faster. In that case, in that hypothetical, an AI 100x faster than a person is not much better than 100 people. It won't forget things (that's an assumption, actually), it's neuron firing or equivalent would be faster, but maybe it won't really be capable of anything fundamentally different than people. Yeah, that's another really good way of putting it. That's probably closer to what I meant, than what I said above.

derefr 11y ago

> They seem to all equate intelligence and processing speed. It's helpful to remind people that every human brain that exists runs at the same processing speed†, yet we have greatly varying intelligence between us. (Also, IQ is an index, but people confuse it for a linear measure; human geniuses may be doing things that require many times the "intelligence" of the average person.) † Okay, I lied: there are some people whose neurons have abnormal firing rates; the visible result is Parkinsonism.

rayalez 11y ago

Even if that is the case, a person with human-level intelligence, but with unlimited memory, ability to visualize, internet connection, no need to sleep, and thinking 100 times faster than a normal person would quickly become pretty much God to us.

shpx 11y ago
I agree, I suspect at this time there's more room for progress to be made by augmenting human intellect than AI. Think about how long it takes you to imagine a program vs actually coding it, or imagining an object you want to create and actually building it, there are at least two or three orders of magnitude for improvement over the keyboard.

majika 11y ago

If we accept: - that there's only one class of "humanic" intelligence; - that we can approximately represent instances in this class of intelligence as vectors of {memory, learning speed, computation speed, communication speed}; - that any AI that could be created is merely a vector in this n-dimensional intelligence space, lacking any extra-intelligent qualities; - that productivity and achievement increases exponentially the more intelligent being you devote to a problem, but logarithmically for more beings you devote (e.g. a being with intelligence vector {10,10,10,10} might be as productive as 10000 {1,1,1,1} beings); then this doesn't exclude the possibility of us creating an AI with an intelligence vector twice an average human's intelligence vector, which can suggest improvements to its algorithms and datacenter and chip designs to become 10x as intelligent as a human, and from there it could quickly determine new algorithms, and eventually it's considering philosophy (and what to do about these humans). The point is: viewing intelligence the way you suggest doesn't help us on what to do about "super" artificial intelligence.