4 ms·

>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 amoun

>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.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  >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 don't think so. We already know the laws of physics to a great degree. An AI or even human could design all sorts of amazing things without ever doing a single experiment. Of course, there's no reason it can't do experiments, also. Once it's free on the internet, it need only contact some random Joe and bribe/threaten/persuade them to do it's bidding. >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. Perhaps. This doesn't seem to be true of most technologies though. You could go to 1800 London and show them how to build a modern car or airplane in a year or so. You could introduce everything from antibiotics to radios, centuries before they were actually invented. Ancient romans could have built crude steam engines, and bootstrapped industry in a century, if they had known how. Building a CPU might require first building multiple other industries to support it, but that can be done. If the AI lays out in painstaking detail, every step necessary to construct every tool, every machine. And yes it would take a lot of labor, but they would be able to do it. It seems impossible to us, because we can't imagine that kind of complexity. Humans are terrible at managing complex systems. We overlook or forget details, we don't account for possible mistakes, etc. No single human even knows every step necessary to build a pencil, because we specialize so much. An AI could be aware of every detail, of every step in the process, and manage it at terrifying efficiency.

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.

Houshalter 10y ago
>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 don't think so. We already know the laws of physics to a great degree. An AI or even human could design all sorts of amazing things without ever doing a single experiment. Of course, there's no reason it can't do experiments, also. Once it's free on the internet, it need only contact some random Joe and bribe/threaten/persuade them to do it's bidding. >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. Perhaps. This doesn't seem to be true of most technologies though. You could go to 1800 London and show them how to build a modern car or airplane in a year or so. You could introduce everything from antibiotics to radios, centuries before they were actually invented. Ancient romans could have built crude steam engines, and bootstrapped industry in a century, if they had known how. Building a CPU might require first building multiple other industries to support it, but that can be done. If the AI lays out in painstaking detail, every step necessary to construct every tool, every machine. And yes it would take a lot of labor, but they would be able to do it. It seems impossible to us, because we can't imagine that kind of complexity. Humans are terrible at managing complex systems. We overlook or forget details, we don't account for possible mistakes, etc. No single human even knows every step necessary to build a pencil, because we specialize so much. An AI could be aware of every detail, of every step in the process, and manage it at terrifying efficiency.