5 ms·

First, let me say that I'm generally a Kevin Kelly fan. That being said, I think his article shows extreme arrogance for one simple reason: To suppose that sup

by MR4D 10y ago

First, let me say that I'm generally a Kevin Kelly fan. That being said, I think his article shows extreme arrogance for one simple reason: To suppose that superhuman AI (AI smarter than us) won't exist is roughly the equivalent of saying that humans are at the limit on the spectrum of intelligence. Really? Nothing will ever be smarter than us?? Highly doubtful. That should stand on its own, but I have other critiques. For instance, why does silicon have to be assumed? Why not germanium or graphite, or something else? I have little faith that a CPU circa 2050 will be built exclusively on silicon. By 2100, no way. Second, there is a simple definition of intelligence that is applicable to many forms: intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns and make accurate judgements / predictions based on previously seen patterns. The higher the accuracy or the more complicated the pattern, the higher the intelligence. My final point of contention is the idea that AI must emulate human thinking. Why? Maybe human thinking sucks. Maybe Dolphins have much better intelligence, but due to a lack of opposable thumbs, they don't rule the world like we do. And lest you think that less intelligent species can destroy others, could you really doubt that roaches and ants will be extinct before us?

rl3 10y ago
>For instance, why does silicon have to be assumed? Why not germanium or graphite, or something else? Why a traditional computing architecture in the first place? Assuming you throw ethics out the window, the fastest path to superintelligence may be via biological material. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/18/first-almost-fully-formed-human-brain-grown-in-lab-researchers-claim https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/18/first-almost...
- adrianN 10y ago
  I wonder why ethical questions should be different depending on the hardware the AI runs on.
  - rl3 10y ago
    In an absolute sense there probably wouldn't be any difference—certainly none in theory anyways, based on our current scientific knowledge. When considering logistics however, there may be. Digital and biological approaches might ultimately produce the same mind in the end, but their methods of getting there may differ considerably due to the underlying medium. That's where I suspect the ethical differences may lie. Who knows, digital could end up being worse somehow—I certainly wouldn't want to be a HAL 9000 unit undergoing a shutdown procedure. Especially when I can just pay for singing lessons.
interfixus 10y ago
To suppose that superhuman AI (AI smarter than us) won't exist Which is exectly what Kelly doesn't say. He says that the smarter concept is ill defined, and that our current fantasies of some universally superior AI galloping onto the scene and taking over everything may be just that - fantasies.
- BoiledCabbage 10y ago
  > He says that the smarter concept is ill defined Which isn't a contradiction like he claims it is. It just means that there are many different ways that a future AI can be smarter than us. That intelligence could be multi-dimensional. But guess what, we can easily take that multi-dimensional input, and find a formula that reduces it to a single scalar value based on our practical valuation of these forms of intelligences (almost like an intelligenc 'utility function' from economics), and problem solved. We're right back to a single order dimension for ranking intelligence. It was a really weak argument he put forward. Additionally a weak argument was the branching / fan pattern of various species. Yes all living species are at the peak of evolution for their environment, but they weren't all pressured to evolve more intelligence. Some evolved strength, speed, flight to their environment. If instead natural selection began only selecting for intelligence (like humans searching for AGI will), then you would could definitely rank all animals linearly on a single path of intelligence.
  - interfixus 10y ago
    It just means that there are many different ways that a future AI can be smarter than us. That intelligence could be multi-dimensional A condensed way of saying precisely what Kelly is saying in the article. Allowing for the very real possibility that I am simply too dumb and not grasping your point. but they weren't all pressured to evolve more intelligence And it isn't claimed that they were. General evolution is used as an example of potential patterns in evolution of various intelligences.
    - BoiledCabbage 10y ago
      He attempted to use the multi-dimensionality of intelligence to make the following claim: > Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. This is poor reasoning. The fact that intelligence is multi-dimensional has no bearing on our ability to declare something smarter than us. It isn't at all meaningless. Because of this he claims that there will be no super-human AI. Via analogy. He says, "you can't compare two football players because one may be stronger, while another if faster." So the concept of "better" is meaningless. And no player can be declared better. My response is that's absurd. A simple counter-example, a single player can be both strong and faster, and thus clearly better.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by MR4D 10y ago

rl3 10y ago

>For instance, why does silicon have to be assumed? Why not germanium or graphite, or something else? Why a traditional computing architecture in the first place? Assuming you throw ethics out the window, the fastest path to superintelligence may be via biological material. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/18/first-almost-fully-formed-human-brain-grown-in-lab-researchers-claim https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/18/first-almost...

adrianN 10y ago
I wonder why ethical questions should be different depending on the hardware the AI runs on.
- rl3 10y ago
  In an absolute sense there probably wouldn't be any difference—certainly none in theory anyways, based on our current scientific knowledge. When considering logistics however, there may be. Digital and biological approaches might ultimately produce the same mind in the end, but their methods of getting there may differ considerably due to the underlying medium. That's where I suspect the ethical differences may lie. Who knows, digital could end up being worse somehow—I certainly wouldn't want to be a HAL 9000 unit undergoing a shutdown procedure. Especially when I can just pay for singing lessons.

interfixus 10y ago

To suppose that superhuman AI (AI smarter than us) won't exist Which is exectly what Kelly doesn't say. He says that the smarter concept is ill defined, and that our current fantasies of some universally superior AI galloping onto the scene and taking over everything may be just that - fantasies.

BoiledCabbage 10y ago
> He says that the smarter concept is ill defined Which isn't a contradiction like he claims it is. It just means that there are many different ways that a future AI can be smarter than us. That intelligence could be multi-dimensional. But guess what, we can easily take that multi-dimensional input, and find a formula that reduces it to a single scalar value based on our practical valuation of these forms of intelligences (almost like an intelligenc 'utility function' from economics), and problem solved. We're right back to a single order dimension for ranking intelligence. It was a really weak argument he put forward. Additionally a weak argument was the branching / fan pattern of various species. Yes all living species are at the peak of evolution for their environment, but they weren't all pressured to evolve more intelligence. Some evolved strength, speed, flight to their environment. If instead natural selection began only selecting for intelligence (like humans searching for AGI will), then you would could definitely rank all animals linearly on a single path of intelligence.
- interfixus 10y ago
  It just means that there are many different ways that a future AI can be smarter than us. That intelligence could be multi-dimensional A condensed way of saying precisely what Kelly is saying in the article. Allowing for the very real possibility that I am simply too dumb and not grasping your point. but they weren't all pressured to evolve more intelligence And it isn't claimed that they were. General evolution is used as an example of potential patterns in evolution of various intelligences.
  - BoiledCabbage 10y ago
    He attempted to use the multi-dimensionality of intelligence to make the following claim: > Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept. This is poor reasoning. The fact that intelligence is multi-dimensional has no bearing on our ability to declare something smarter than us. It isn't at all meaningless. Because of this he claims that there will be no super-human AI. Via analogy. He says, "you can't compare two football players because one may be stronger, while another if faster." So the concept of "better" is meaningless. And no player can be declared better. My response is that's absurd. A simple counter-example, a single player can be both strong and faster, and thus clearly better.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]