3 ms·

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 sayin

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 9y 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.
- interfixus 9y ago
  A third player is weaker, but faster. And smarter. Or tougher. Or more agile. More agile but not quite as smart. More persistent. Less predictable. And so on and so forth. Your 'meaningless' only has meaning because you apply it to a hugely simplified model.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    > 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)... My original comment addressed that specific case.

BoiledCabbage 9y 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.

interfixus 9y ago
A third player is weaker, but faster. And smarter. Or tougher. Or more agile. More agile but not quite as smart. More persistent. Less predictable. And so on and so forth. Your 'meaningless' only has meaning because you apply it to a hugely simplified model.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > 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)... My original comment addressed that specific case.