4 ms·

"The whole statement is also wrong. Of course you can increase intelligence by optimizing the process of learning." One of the author's main points is that "in

by 10-6 9y ago

"The whole statement is also wrong. Of course you can increase intelligence by optimizing the process of learning." One of the author's main points is that "intelligence" in the way you mentioned, learning and optimization, is simply one aspect of the human mind. So we could optimize our minds (or an AI program) to beat anyone at the game of Go and play perfectly, but that's all it is optimized to do. It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task. Proponents of "build a general AI system that will surpass humans at everything" don't seem to understand this.

mrec 9y ago
I'm suddenly having flashbacks to reading On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf
- EthanHeilman 9y ago
  "A further reason why it is senseless to speak of machines that are larger than people is that humans already possess the property of universal largeness. By this, we mean that humans are capable of augmenting their bodies or coming together to become indefinitely large, no matter the metric chosen. If a human would like to be taller, they can stand on a chair or climb onto another human’s shoulders. If they would like to be wider, they can begin consuming a high-calorie diet or simply put on a thick sweater (Hensrud, 2004; Figure1)."
manux 9y ago
> It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task. Humans are bound by the size of their brains. Machines can "duplicate themselves", in a way, it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection. Humans can't do that. If pro Go players stop playing Go and decide to master sword-making, they will forget about Go. A machine could be designed not to.
- 10-6 9y ago
  "it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection" People like Elon Musk will write sentences like this but hidden away in it is a subtle reference to an AI program understanding what it's doing. An AI program cannot jump from mastery of Go (with its neural networks and weighted matrices) to all of a sudden decide to figure out what the best course of action is to stop global warming or find a cure for cancer. Humans write AI programs to learn how to perform a specific task via optimization, neural networks, deep learning, and all sorts of other algorithms. One of the authors main arguments is that "learning and optimization" that AI programs do today does not mean they are close to achieving "general AI" which the author also thinks is not possible: "Decades later, the concept of an “intelligence explosion” — leading to the sudden rise of “superintelligence” and the accidental end of the human race — has taken hold in the AI community. Famous business leaders are casting it as a major risk, greater than nuclear war or climate change."
  - manux 9y ago
    I believe that we are not close to "general AI", at all. Yet, that is a very different position than believing that "general AI" is not possible at all, which I think is a foolish position considering highly adaptative beings exist "biomechanically" in the form of humans.
FeatureRush 9y ago
Isn't there a loophole in this argument - if we could only include "building specialized sub-AIs" in the set of problems our AI can solve? Is there any fundamental reason why this can't be done? I agree that there needs to be more subsystem in AI for 'learning' and 'improving' to even work. Not really sure where I stand on the AI debate, surpassing humans at everything seems misguided to me, like why would you include all this human-like cruft in the AI when you can put in stuff humans could never have?

by 10-6 9y ago

mrec 9y ago

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to reading On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf

EthanHeilman 9y ago
"A further reason why it is senseless to speak of machines that are larger than people is that humans already possess the property of universal largeness. By this, we mean that humans are capable of augmenting their bodies or coming together to become indefinitely large, no matter the metric chosen. If a human would like to be taller, they can stand on a chair or climb onto another human’s shoulders. If they would like to be wider, they can begin consuming a high-calorie diet or simply put on a thick sweater (Hensrud, 2004; Figure1)."

manux 9y ago

> It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task. Humans are bound by the size of their brains. Machines can "duplicate themselves", in a way, it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection. Humans can't do that. If pro Go players stop playing Go and decide to master sword-making, they will forget about Go. A machine could be designed not to.

10-6 9y ago
"it can freeze its Go-playing part and learn to do something else to perfection" People like Elon Musk will write sentences like this but hidden away in it is a subtle reference to an AI program understanding what it's doing. An AI program cannot jump from mastery of Go (with its neural networks and weighted matrices) to all of a sudden decide to figure out what the best course of action is to stop global warming or find a cure for cancer. Humans write AI programs to learn how to perform a specific task via optimization, neural networks, deep learning, and all sorts of other algorithms. One of the authors main arguments is that "learning and optimization" that AI programs do today does not mean they are close to achieving "general AI" which the author also thinks is not possible: "Decades later, the concept of an “intelligence explosion” — leading to the sudden rise of “superintelligence” and the accidental end of the human race — has taken hold in the AI community. Famous business leaders are casting it as a major risk, greater than nuclear war or climate change."
- manux 9y ago
  I believe that we are not close to "general AI", at all. Yet, that is a very different position than believing that "general AI" is not possible at all, which I think is a foolish position considering highly adaptative beings exist "biomechanically" in the form of humans.

FeatureRush 9y ago

Isn't there a loophole in this argument - if we could only include "building specialized sub-AIs" in the set of problems our AI can solve? Is there any fundamental reason why this can't be done? I agree that there needs to be more subsystem in AI for 'learning' and 'improving' to even work. Not really sure where I stand on the AI debate, surpassing humans at everything seems misguided to me, like why would you include all this human-like cruft in the AI when you can put in stuff humans could never have?