My thoughts exactly. The author is concluding that since we've never seen supersonic wing-flapping in nature, we'll never see supersonic flight. Not only is t

My thoughts exactly. The author is concluding that since we've never seen supersonic wing-flapping in nature, we'll never see supersonic flight. Not only is that an unwarranted implication, in a mathematical sense, but it also doesn't cover the possibility of inventing something fundamentally different to what we've observed in the universe thus far. Using human and octopus examples as proof of anything is ignoring that general AI will be fundamentally different to anything that we've observed on earth, and therefore invalidates any attempt to extrapolate from history. There has never been an intelligence that could copy/paste itself intact with its existing memories. There has never been an intelligence that could literally span the whole world with a single consciousness. And so on. > There is no such thing as “general” intelligence. The intelligence of a human is specialized in the problem of being human. That's exactly what people are worried about. When the AI specializes itself to be better at being a human than actual humans. It doesn't matter if it's totally general and can be applied to any problem whatsoever; human intelligence is also just "general enough". > Will the superhuman AIs of the future, developed collectively over centuries, have the capability to develop AI greater than themselves? No, no more than any of us can. Okay, so instead of single AI's developing next-gen AI's, it'll be "AI civilization" developing next-gen AI's. This still poses exactly the same existential risk to humanity. > We didn’t make greater progress in physics over the 1950–2000 period than we did over 1900–1950 — we did, arguably, about as well. Well I certainly know we made exponentially more progress in those years than from the years 900-950? Nevermind say 100,000-5,000 BCE.