4 ms·

There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific branch called psychometrics since the start of the century. If see you live in US its the

There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific branch called psychometrics since the start of the century. If see you live in US its the country with the most widespread use of iq tests in SAT, army, law schools etc. I am not even sure if we need to understand it fully to build an AI that is capable.or producing the measurable output of it. Since it will outperform humans in everything it doesnt matter imo. I suggest the book Superintelligence talks about these exact questions. Semi jokingly, we understand much less of quantum theory than intelligence.

T-A 10y ago
> There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific branch called psychometrics Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. [1] It is most definitely not a theory of intelligence. > I am not even sure if we need to understand it fully to build an AI Indeed not, since it is completely irrelevant to how intelligence works. > I suggest the book Superintelligence talks about these exact questions. I've read it. A TLDR would go something like this: "Suppose we were to create an almighty entity which does not share our values. Could that be a problem for us? Gosh, yes!". Wild assumptions aside, it makes no mention of psychometrics (of course). > Semi jokingly, we understand much less of quantum theory than intelligence. Quite seriously: absolutely not. Quantum mechanics is a perfectly well defined mathematical construct. It makes experimentally verifiable predictions. Our best, most precise theories of nature are quantum theories. We have no theory of intelligence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics
- arisAlexis 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point although I understand and partially agree with your arguments. Because we do not precisely know how intelligence works (because surely we agree it exists) that means that we can never create an equally powerful version we have or you disagree about the creation of a better version. There is nothing to prevent us from doing the first
  - T-A 10y ago
    I am saying that we do not know which algorithm to use in order to implement a general artificial intelligence. Even if somebody gave you unlimited resources to do it - all the computers and programmers you want - you would currently be unable to do it, because we don't know how to do it. That obviously does not mean that we will never know. It does not even mean that we necessarily need to know. In fact, a scenario which Yudkowski likes to worry about is that somebody will essentially make brain-like hardware and get something going without any real understanding of how it works. That "only" requires duplicating the structure of the brain, not understanding it. That is the scenario which I alluded to in my wild-assed guess. Whichever approach turns out to be the one that first gets to a human-level AI, the fact that we do not have a theory makes it impossible to predict how long it will take and how fast the result will be able to improve. Even if all we need to do is mass-produce a few million functional equivalents of cortical columns and hook them all up somehow, we are not currently able to guess how the resulting intelligence will scale. If we double the number of columns, will its IQ double? Quadruple? Or maybe only grow linearly, or logarithmically, or as the square root of the number of columns? Or maybe not grow at all, because it's not just a matter of quantity, but of certain architectural features which do not scale?
    - arisAlexis 10y ago
      I see that we do actually agree. My assumption was that if somehow something we create artificially can better itself then it would then probably do very rapidly. My questions was that is it possible (sci-fi discussion) for it to do it so fast that we do not even realize it ever happened.

T-A 10y ago

> There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific branch called psychometrics Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. [1] It is most definitely not a theory of intelligence. > I am not even sure if we need to understand it fully to build an AI Indeed not, since it is completely irrelevant to how intelligence works. > I suggest the book Superintelligence talks about these exact questions. I've read it. A TLDR would go something like this: "Suppose we were to create an almighty entity which does not share our values. Could that be a problem for us? Gosh, yes!". Wild assumptions aside, it makes no mention of psychometrics (of course). > Semi jokingly, we understand much less of quantum theory than intelligence. Quite seriously: absolutely not. Quantum mechanics is a perfectly well defined mathematical construct. It makes experimentally verifiable predictions. Our best, most precise theories of nature are quantum theories. We have no theory of intelligence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics

arisAlexis 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point although I understand and partially agree with your arguments. Because we do not precisely know how intelligence works (because surely we agree it exists) that means that we can never create an equally powerful version we have or you disagree about the creation of a better version. There is nothing to prevent us from doing the first
- T-A 10y ago
  I am saying that we do not know which algorithm to use in order to implement a general artificial intelligence. Even if somebody gave you unlimited resources to do it - all the computers and programmers you want - you would currently be unable to do it, because we don't know how to do it. That obviously does not mean that we will never know. It does not even mean that we necessarily need to know. In fact, a scenario which Yudkowski likes to worry about is that somebody will essentially make brain-like hardware and get something going without any real understanding of how it works. That "only" requires duplicating the structure of the brain, not understanding it. That is the scenario which I alluded to in my wild-assed guess. Whichever approach turns out to be the one that first gets to a human-level AI, the fact that we do not have a theory makes it impossible to predict how long it will take and how fast the result will be able to improve. Even if all we need to do is mass-produce a few million functional equivalents of cortical columns and hook them all up somehow, we are not currently able to guess how the resulting intelligence will scale. If we double the number of columns, will its IQ double? Quadruple? Or maybe only grow linearly, or logarithmically, or as the square root of the number of columns? Or maybe not grow at all, because it's not just a matter of quantity, but of certain architectural features which do not scale?
  - arisAlexis 10y ago
    I see that we do actually agree. My assumption was that if somehow something we create artificially can better itself then it would then probably do very rapidly. My questions was that is it possible (sci-fi discussion) for it to do it so fast that we do not even realize it ever happened.