3 ms·

>being able to prove things about some beautiful intricate mathematical structure most of the times doesn't help you much with the world of matter. Mathematica

>being able to prove things about some beautiful intricate mathematical structure most of the times doesn't help you much with the world of matter. Mathematical ability is just an example. The same abilities that apply to math also apply to engineering, programming, etc. A superintelligent AI would be able to do unbelievable things to "the world of matter". Because the main requirement for manipulating matter is intelligence, discovering better designs and technologies. > Hackers are successful not because they are ungodly smart. They are successful because they have the will to look for and exploit vulnerabilities. Intelligence, again, doesn't help all that much. I don't think people who wrote stuxnet were able to do this because they were of superior intelligence. I find this assertion unbelievable. Even average hackers have significantly above average IQ. I can't find the statistics right at the moment, but many STEM degrees have above average IQ. The best is physicists which had an average IQ of 130. An average person can barely figure out how to operate their email client, they won't be building stuxnet anytime soon. >Super-intelligence won't help you with stock market because it's purely random game. It is not. People make fortunes with just slightly better statistical models, or slightly better information. Traders spend millions to fly drones and helicopters over oil tanks and parking lots, to get a slight edge over others. >It's hard to engineer because it's so damn small, not because it's complex. To build nanotech you'll need to build tools to build tools to build tools to build nanotech. You could do all that but even if you are 1000 times smarter, reality has a speed limit. You can't take a shovel of sand from the beach and build CPU, no matter how intelligent you are. You have to build fab first. But we could potentially bootstrap nanotechnology really quickly from existing biology. There are already labs that will make proteins on demand from DNA. The problem is it's just so complicated.

scotty79 10y ago
> main requirement for manipulating matter is intelligence Rather, it's knowledge. And to get more knowledge you need to manipulate matter. Pure intelligence is useful up to a point but the you need to go out and get more data. That's the limiting factor I think of. The only thing you can do with just intelligence is math (that can have some use later on) and philosophy (that's totally useless). > The best is physicists which had an average IQ of 130. Incredible amount of people have IQ over 130. If that was key factor to writing stuxnet there'd be new one each day. > An average person can barely figure out how to operate their email client, they won't be building stuxnet anytime soon. IMHO that's mostly because they lack knowledge and any reason to care. You really don't need IQ above 130 to do technical things and having IQ of 150 or even 200 doesn't help you all that much, it seems, with pushing boundaries of human capacity. Progress is made mostly by fairly common intelligent people talking to each other. > It is not. People make fortunes with just slightly better statistical models, or slightly better information. And they lose fortunes with significantly better statistical models, and better information (up to but excluding insider trading). When you sum up everything it's as random as it gets. Take a look at Warren Buffet bet against hedge funds. In all fairness additional information could help, but data is not information and where good models are unavailable and processes are chaotic you are almost just as likely to infer correct information from data as incorrect. > But we could potentially bootstrap nanotechnology really quickly from existing biology. There are already labs that will make proteins on demand from DNA. The problem is it's just so complicated. For me it looks more like building multi-core CPU in times of Blaise Pascal. Foundation theory is here, even some tech, but we have no idea how much technicalities lie ahead of us to figure to get to our dreams.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  >The only thing you can do with just intelligence is math (that can have some use later on) and philosophy (that's totally useless). We already have vast amounts of knowledge on the internet. I can download all of wikipedia in an hour, and fit it on a flash drive. Most of the world's scientific papers and books are digitized and available. The limiting factor is no longer knowledge. It's the ability to absorb knowledge. To be able to instantly find an obscure paper from 1930 that's relevant to your current thought, or know some random fact from some article you read years ago, etc. That's something AIs would have a huge advantage over humans at. >Incredible amount of people have IQ over 130. If that was key factor to writing stuxnet there'd be new one each day. Stuxnet wasn't written by one person. It was probably a huge team of intelligent people, who worked possibly for years. But who says an AI can't be equivalent to a group of humans? If it has enough computing power, it could make copies of itself. And unlike humans it can communicate thoughts and plans instantly to it's other "selves". And who says it has to work at the same speed humans work. Human brains run at maybe 100 hz. AI's built out of silicone could work thousands of times faster. Doing the same work, just in much shorter time. >And they lose fortunes with significantly better statistical models, and better information (up to but excluding insider trading). When you sum up everything it's as random as it gets. Take a look at Warren Buffet bet against hedge funds. Look it's simple math. If you can predict prices 1% more accurately than anyone else, then you can make a huge amount of money in the long run. Stock prices aren't random. They are determined by real events, mainly how much profit the company makes. >but we have no idea how much technicalities lie ahead of us to figure to get to our dreams. That's the point though. A superintelligent AI could figure out exactly what those technicalities are, and find the shortest route to that tech. If you went back in time to Blaise Pascal, if you took the right books and plans from the future, you could get them to CPUs in mere years. We could advance technologically much faster than we are, the limiting factor is the speed of invention, which is slow.
  - scotty79 10y ago
    > The limiting factor is no longer knowledge. It's the ability to absorb knowledge. I get your point that from all experiments we performed so far and bothered to write down and digitize there might be few tricks left to squeeze out, but vast majority of our current progress comes from new experiments. I agree that AI could very well write stuxnet or mess with our security so I'm hoping we get bit more tight in that department before we manage to build AI. I'd definitely prefer first artificial consciousness to be built before robots are as popular as cars or smartphones. We will eventually develop AI and it'll be definitely challenging to orchestrate it running most of our civilization and not killing us in the process. What I'm not afraid is AI taking what we know so far and secretly turning itself into miracle making god in matter of weeks. We will have few years or decades of existence before AI becomes vastly more powerful than the rest of us and till then we will have ability to align our priorities. > Human brains run at maybe 100 hz. AI's built out of silicone could work thousands of times faster. Doing the same work, just in much shorter time. It's not work. It's just thinking. AI can create philosophical theories or build new optimal JavaScript frameworks at blazing speed and still not make any progress in physics that would make it more powerful than us. It needs new data. It needs to run experiments to get anywhere beyond what we achieved so far. If we maintain transparency and caution in what AI is given and allowed to do then we may have safely transition from current world to AI world. Besides, at some point our civilization will encounter others it's better to bring our own AI to the table. Alien one might attach much less sentimental value to us. > If you went back in time to Blaise Pascal, if you took the right books and plans from the future, you could get them to CPUs in mere years. No, you couldn't. Do you know how long it takes to build a fab with current infrastructure available? You'd have to bring half or their industry into XX century before you could have a CPU. > If you can predict prices 1% more accurately than anyone else, then you can make a huge amount of money in the long run. Yes. The thing with stock market is that you can't. It's not because you are not smarter than other traders. It's because interaction between all the traders creates pretty much perfect chaotic random process that no-one can predict. > Stock prices aren't random. They are determined by real events, mainly how much profit the company makes. Same way random generator driven by unknown algorithm is predicted by its seed.

scotty79 10y ago

> main requirement for manipulating matter is intelligence Rather, it's knowledge. And to get more knowledge you need to manipulate matter. Pure intelligence is useful up to a point but the you need to go out and get more data. That's the limiting factor I think of. The only thing you can do with just intelligence is math (that can have some use later on) and philosophy (that's totally useless). > The best is physicists which had an average IQ of 130. Incredible amount of people have IQ over 130. If that was key factor to writing stuxnet there'd be new one each day. > An average person can barely figure out how to operate their email client, they won't be building stuxnet anytime soon. IMHO that's mostly because they lack knowledge and any reason to care. You really don't need IQ above 130 to do technical things and having IQ of 150 or even 200 doesn't help you all that much, it seems, with pushing boundaries of human capacity. Progress is made mostly by fairly common intelligent people talking to each other. > It is not. People make fortunes with just slightly better statistical models, or slightly better information. And they lose fortunes with significantly better statistical models, and better information (up to but excluding insider trading). When you sum up everything it's as random as it gets. Take a look at Warren Buffet bet against hedge funds. In all fairness additional information could help, but data is not information and where good models are unavailable and processes are chaotic you are almost just as likely to infer correct information from data as incorrect. > But we could potentially bootstrap nanotechnology really quickly from existing biology. There are already labs that will make proteins on demand from DNA. The problem is it's just so complicated. For me it looks more like building multi-core CPU in times of Blaise Pascal. Foundation theory is here, even some tech, but we have no idea how much technicalities lie ahead of us to figure to get to our dreams.

Houshalter 10y ago
>The only thing you can do with just intelligence is math (that can have some use later on) and philosophy (that's totally useless). We already have vast amounts of knowledge on the internet. I can download all of wikipedia in an hour, and fit it on a flash drive. Most of the world's scientific papers and books are digitized and available. The limiting factor is no longer knowledge. It's the ability to absorb knowledge. To be able to instantly find an obscure paper from 1930 that's relevant to your current thought, or know some random fact from some article you read years ago, etc. That's something AIs would have a huge advantage over humans at. >Incredible amount of people have IQ over 130. If that was key factor to writing stuxnet there'd be new one each day. Stuxnet wasn't written by one person. It was probably a huge team of intelligent people, who worked possibly for years. But who says an AI can't be equivalent to a group of humans? If it has enough computing power, it could make copies of itself. And unlike humans it can communicate thoughts and plans instantly to it's other "selves". And who says it has to work at the same speed humans work. Human brains run at maybe 100 hz. AI's built out of silicone could work thousands of times faster. Doing the same work, just in much shorter time. >And they lose fortunes with significantly better statistical models, and better information (up to but excluding insider trading). When you sum up everything it's as random as it gets. Take a look at Warren Buffet bet against hedge funds. Look it's simple math. If you can predict prices 1% more accurately than anyone else, then you can make a huge amount of money in the long run. Stock prices aren't random. They are determined by real events, mainly how much profit the company makes. >but we have no idea how much technicalities lie ahead of us to figure to get to our dreams. That's the point though. A superintelligent AI could figure out exactly what those technicalities are, and find the shortest route to that tech. If you went back in time to Blaise Pascal, if you took the right books and plans from the future, you could get them to CPUs in mere years. We could advance technologically much faster than we are, the limiting factor is the speed of invention, which is slow.
- scotty79 10y ago
  > The limiting factor is no longer knowledge. It's the ability to absorb knowledge. I get your point that from all experiments we performed so far and bothered to write down and digitize there might be few tricks left to squeeze out, but vast majority of our current progress comes from new experiments. I agree that AI could very well write stuxnet or mess with our security so I'm hoping we get bit more tight in that department before we manage to build AI. I'd definitely prefer first artificial consciousness to be built before robots are as popular as cars or smartphones. We will eventually develop AI and it'll be definitely challenging to orchestrate it running most of our civilization and not killing us in the process. What I'm not afraid is AI taking what we know so far and secretly turning itself into miracle making god in matter of weeks. We will have few years or decades of existence before AI becomes vastly more powerful than the rest of us and till then we will have ability to align our priorities. > Human brains run at maybe 100 hz. AI's built out of silicone could work thousands of times faster. Doing the same work, just in much shorter time. It's not work. It's just thinking. AI can create philosophical theories or build new optimal JavaScript frameworks at blazing speed and still not make any progress in physics that would make it more powerful than us. It needs new data. It needs to run experiments to get anywhere beyond what we achieved so far. If we maintain transparency and caution in what AI is given and allowed to do then we may have safely transition from current world to AI world. Besides, at some point our civilization will encounter others it's better to bring our own AI to the table. Alien one might attach much less sentimental value to us. > If you went back in time to Blaise Pascal, if you took the right books and plans from the future, you could get them to CPUs in mere years. No, you couldn't. Do you know how long it takes to build a fab with current infrastructure available? You'd have to bring half or their industry into XX century before you could have a CPU. > If you can predict prices 1% more accurately than anyone else, then you can make a huge amount of money in the long run. Yes. The thing with stock market is that you can't. It's not because you are not smarter than other traders. It's because interaction between all the traders creates pretty much perfect chaotic random process that no-one can predict. > Stock prices aren't random. They are determined by real events, mainly how much profit the company makes. Same way random generator driven by unknown algorithm is predicted by its seed.