6 ms·

The author makes several points about AI/intelligence and recursive systems that I think a lot of people who think "AI will take over the world and replace" hum

by 10-6 9y ago

The author makes several points about AI/intelligence and recursive systems that I think a lot of people who think "AI will take over the world and replace" humans [1][2][3] don't understand. He argues that general intelligence by itself is not really something that exists, our brains exist within a broader system (environment, culture, bodies, etc.) which is something you can read more about in embodied cognition: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/a-brief-guide-to-embodied-cognition-why-you-are-not-your-brain/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/a-brief-guid... He also argues that the public debate about "AI regulation" is misleading because it's impossible for a "seed AI" to start designing smarter AI's that will surpass the intelligence of humans which is what a lot of people today think will happen with AI. Automation of jobs and tasks is very real, but completely replacing humans and potentially destroying us all is a joke and only the people who no nothing about AI/brains think this. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-do... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/elon-musk-robots-will-be-able-to-do-everything-better-than-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/elon-musk-robots-will-be-abl... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/17/537686649/elon-musk-warns-governors-artificial-intelligence-poses-existential-risk https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/17/537686649...

erasemus 9y ago
I like his argument in the middle section of howcome IQ predicts income or social status despite the fact that general intelligence doesn't exist. It seems to me that the categories of 'knowledge' and 'creativity' are more fruitful. For example, his idea that intelligence is 'situational' reflects the fact that people know more about some topics than others, and also that our environment contains knowledge (e.g. a machine embodies knowledge put there by the designers that the machine operator doesn't have).
drngdds 9y ago
>[AI] completely replacing humans and potentially destroying us all is a joke and only the people who no nothing about AI/brains think this. This isn't true at all. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...
naasking 9y ago
> Automation of jobs and tasks is very real, but completely replacing humans and potentially destroying us all is a joke and only the people who no nothing about AI/brains think this. Don't be absurd. Brains are simply biochemical computers. The idea of electrical or other types of computers superceding us is perfectly realizable. The only real debate is over the timeline.
- spuz 9y ago
  It's not absurd to believe that humans will never be able to invent machines that match human level intelligence. Firstly, it's not necessarily logical to assume that brains are simply computers because we've never created or even imagined a computer that works anything like a brain. Even if it's possible, it might be beyond human intelligence to invent such a computer. I like to think of AGI like the Warp Drive. It might well be possible, but we might never develop the capability to make one.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > It's not absurd to believe that humans will never be able to invent machines that match human level intelligence It actually is absurd and it's easy to see why: nature evolved a series of progressively more intelligent biochemical computers by accident, simply by trial and error. If that's all we ever did with computers, like enumerating all Turing machines, we would eventually find one more intelligent than us. The fact that we can do even better than simple trial and error, for instance, by building machines that help us build machines, we drastically accelerate that inevitability.
    - spuz 9y ago
      You are still making the assumption that the brain is a computer. Is there any theoretical proof that our brains are a permutation of a Turing machine? That to me would seem to be the first step towards your conclusion.
      - naasking 9y ago

by 10-6 9y ago

erasemus 9y ago

I like his argument in the middle section of howcome IQ predicts income or social status despite the fact that general intelligence doesn't exist. It seems to me that the categories of 'knowledge' and 'creativity' are more fruitful. For example, his idea that intelligence is 'situational' reflects the fact that people know more about some topics than others, and also that our environment contains knowledge (e.g. a machine embodies knowledge put there by the designers that the machine operator doesn't have).

drngdds 9y ago

>[AI] completely replacing humans and potentially destroying us all is a joke and only the people who no nothing about AI/brains think this. This isn't true at all. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-ri...

naasking 9y ago

> Automation of jobs and tasks is very real, but completely replacing humans and potentially destroying us all is a joke and only the people who no nothing about AI/brains think this. Don't be absurd. Brains are simply biochemical computers. The idea of electrical or other types of computers superceding us is perfectly realizable. The only real debate is over the timeline.

spuz 9y ago
It's not absurd to believe that humans will never be able to invent machines that match human level intelligence. Firstly, it's not necessarily logical to assume that brains are simply computers because we've never created or even imagined a computer that works anything like a brain. Even if it's possible, it might be beyond human intelligence to invent such a computer. I like to think of AGI like the Warp Drive. It might well be possible, but we might never develop the capability to make one.
- naasking 9y ago
  > It's not absurd to believe that humans will never be able to invent machines that match human level intelligence It actually is absurd and it's easy to see why: nature evolved a series of progressively more intelligent biochemical computers by accident, simply by trial and error. If that's all we ever did with computers, like enumerating all Turing machines, we would eventually find one more intelligent than us. The fact that we can do even better than simple trial and error, for instance, by building machines that help us build machines, we drastically accelerate that inevitability.
  - spuz 9y ago
    You are still making the assumption that the brain is a computer. Is there any theoretical proof that our brains are a permutation of a Turing machine? That to me would seem to be the first step towards your conclusion.
    - naasking 9y ago